[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 14 (Thursday, February 1, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H1145-H1179]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON S. 652, TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 353 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 353
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (S. 652) to provide for a pro-competitive, de-regulatory
national policy framework designed to accelerate rapidly
private sector deployment of advanced telecommunications and
information technologies and services to all Americans by
opening all telecommunications markets to competition, and
for other purposes. All points of order against the
conference report and against its consideration are waived.
The conference report shall be considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder] is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson],
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
(Mr. LINDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.)
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 353 provides for the
consideration of the conference report for S. 652, the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, and waives all points of order against
the conference report and against its consideration. The House rules
allow for 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided between the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Commerce and Judiciary
Committees.
In addition, the regular rules of the House provide for a motion to
recommit with or without instructions as is the right of the minority.
Mr. Speaker, what we have before us is a complex piece of legislation
that is the product of many long months of negotiation. I believe that
the conferees have worked in good faith to create a balanced bill which
equalizes the diverse competitive forces in the telecommunications
industry.
This entire process has involved countless competing interests which
include consumers long distance companies, regional Bell operating
companies, cable, newspapers, broadcasters,
[[Page H1146]]
and high-technology firms, to name only a few. We are opening up
competition to those who have been protected for a very long time, and
all of the players are anxious to gain an edge on their new
competitors. I am absolutely confident that the legislation before us
today will produce competition that will be good for all Americans.
I want to commend the tireless work of Chairmen Tom Bliley, Jack
Fields, and Henry Hyde, and ranking members John Dingell, Ed Markey,
and John Conyers. Their handling of this long and difficult conference
will ensure that the United States maintains the lead on the
information superhighway as we move into the 21st century.
We have before us a bill that has undergone a great deal of revision
and assembly in order to reach this point. In the past,
telecommunications reform has fallen victim to one problem or another,
from legislative resistance to the opposition of various powerful
interests. Today, we have a good bipartisan bill, which has endured a
rigorous process. It is a tribute to this process that this bill has
broad support from consumers, industry, the U.S. Congress, and the
White House.
The goal of our telecommunications reform legislation is to encourage
competition that will produce innovative technologies for every
American household and provide benefits to the American consumer in the
form of lower prices and enhanced services. This legislation will
achieve this goal.
Existing companies and companies that currently exist only in the
minds of innovative dreamers will take advantage of this new
competitive landscape and bring new products and a new way of life that
will amaze every American.
Bill Gates, chairman of Microsoft Corporation, envisions an
information revolution that will take place in the world communications
marketplace. While he has expressed his frustration that the sweeping
advancement in technology would not come for about a decade, we have
the opportunity today to speed the advance of this technological and
information revolution. We have the ability to set the pace by passing
momentous legislation that will bring immeasurable technological
advancements to every American family.
The massive barriers to competition and the restrictions that were
necessary not long ago to protect segments of the U.S. economy have
served their purpose. We have achieved great advances and lead the
world in telecommunications services. However, productive societies
strengthen and nourish the spirit of innovation and competition, and I
believe that S. 652 will provide Americans with more choices in new
products and result in tremendous benefits to all consumers.
This legislation will be remembered as the most deregulatory
telecommunications legislation in history. The philosophy of this
Congress--and our Nation in general--is to encourage competition in
order to provide more efficient service and superior products to the
American consumer. This bill will strip away antiquated laws, create
more choices, and lower prices for consumers and enable companies to
compete in the new telecommunications marketplace.
This resolution was favorably reported out of the Rules Committee
yesterday, and I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may
complete consideration on this historic legislation. I strongly support
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which will assure America's role as
the high-technology leader and innovator for the next century, and I am
absolutely certain that this will be the best job-creating legislation
that I will see in my years in this House.
{time} 1315
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, there are some legitimate concerns about this rule for
the consideration of the conference report for this landmark
deregulatory telecommunications legislation, made all the more
relevant, I think, by the fact that on what apparently will be the last
day in which we shall be in session for almost 4 weeks, the principal
responsibility for all of us should not be the hurried passage of this
particular piece of legislation, which has been in conference now for
several months, but rather passage of a clean debt ceiling resolution
that would assure our citizens and the world that the U.S. Government
will not default on its financial obligations.
Beyond that, there is no compelling reason or legitimate need, so far
as this legislation is concerned, to waive the standing rule of the
House that gives Members 3 days to examine a conference report before
being required to vote on it. That is an important rule. It exists for
the protection of Members of Congress and for the protection of the
people we represent, to afford us all an opportunity to study and to
review and to understand the legislation on which we are going to be
asked to vote.
The importance of that rule, Mr. Speaker, is particularly relevant in
a situation such as this when we are, as the gentleman from Georgia has
pointed out, debating landmark legislation which completely rewrites
our existing communications law that regulates industries worth nearly
$1 trillion. Because this rule waives a reasonable and important time
requirement, Members could be approving provisions that are not fully
understood and that could have repercussions that no one has had the
opportunity or the time to think carefully about, or think so carefully
about as necessary.
We are concerned, too, about statements that indicate that there are
plans to complete this conference report and have it signed into law,
and then later on consider legislation later this year that will undo
some of the agreements we are rushing through today.
In sum, it would have been much preferable if Members had been given
the 3 days required by the rules of the House before being asked to
vote on a conference report as complicated as this one, with its
enormous economic, political and cultural consequences for the public
and for businesses and for the Nation in general.
Several very major decisions have been made by the conferees,
including those dealing with the relaxation of restrictions on
ownership of radio and TV stations, with restrictions on Internet
communications, and with the unfunded mandates issue that city
governments in particular have expressed some concerns about.
In addition, the legislation basically unravels the protections that
cable consumers currently enjoy. It terminates regulation of rates for
non-basic cable services for all cable systems no later than 1999, and
immediately for most small cable systems. That obviously is a very
significant issue, dealing as it does with an industry that affects the
great majority of the Americans whom we are elected to represent.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the most worrisome part of the legislation is
its treatment of media ownership and its promotion of mergers and
concentration of power. The bill would change current law to permit a
single company to own television stations reaching 35 percent of the
nationwide audience, an increase from the current level of 25 percent.
Nationwide ownership limits in radio would be eliminated altogether,
while a single company could own numerous radio stations in a single
market. Newspapers could own radio and, in some cases, television
stations in their own communities; local telephone companies could own
television and radio stations in their own service areas.
These proposals pose a serious threat to the principles of broadcast
diversity and localism. They threaten the ability of a community to
have more than one source of news and entertainment.
The conference agreement does contain some provisions that enjoy
widespread support, including one that gives parents the ability to
block television shows that young children, they believe, should not be
watching. That is an important issue. Conferees, most of us think,
should be strongly commended for their support of this language.
We all recognize, Mr. Speaker, the need to make changes in our 60-
year-old communications law, but we are still concerned, as I said at
the outset, about the process under which the bill is being considered.
Obviously the needs and the rights of the American public should be
the primary concern of this legislation. Many
[[Page H1147]]
of us had hoped that the final version would better balance the
introduction of competitive markets with measures designed to protect
the public. I do hope that we do not discover later that we have lost
sight of the public in this process and of the need to protect the
public from potential monopoly abuses.
Mr. Speaker, in sum, this is a very complex and far-reaching piece of
legislation. I am sorry only that we are being forced to consider it in
a rather hurried fashion today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier], my colleague on the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time
and congratulate him on his fine work on this effort.
This is obviously a great day. It has been decades in the making. As
we all know, it has been over six decades since we have been able to
deal as comprehensively with this issue. But I would like to make just
a few points as we move ahead.
First and foremost, the success of this conference demonstrates that
in a bipartisan way there is an understanding that competition works.
It clearly creates a great opportunity to create jobs, creates an
opportunity to benefit the consumer, which is what we want to do. We
want to provide the widest range of choices, and that is exactly what
is going to happen here.
We have learned from the fall of the former Soviet Union that
regulated monopolies do not work, whether it is in business, whether it
is even in public education. We have found that they do not work, and I
think that the realization that we are going to finally bring
telecommunications law up to the market is, I think, something that is
very, very important.
The second point that I would like to make is that the success of
this conference is due in large part to the reforms that were put into
place at the beginning of the 104th Congress. We know that, as we have
looked at the many people who have been involved in this, that if we
had been living with the older system that we had, which is, I know,
inside baseball here to talk about this, but the referral process for
legislation was one which played a role, I believe, in jeopardizing
success in the past. The change that we made at the beginning of this
Congress, I believe, went a long way toward dealing with that.
The other thing that was very important was that we overhauled
committee jurisdictions at the beginning of this Congress, and we have
had some marvelous success in that overhaul, which I believe has gone a
long way toward benefiting the legislative process.
Mr. Speaker, let me just say in closing, the State of California is
pivotal to the success of this, too. California is providing the
hardware and the software that is going to allow us to move into the
21st century, and this legislation will be key. We in California have
what is known as the Silicon Valley where the hardware is going to be
emanating from and Hollywood where the software will be emanating from,
so our State is on the cutting edge, and it will go a long way toward
creating jobs and opportunity.
I urge support of this very balanced rule, and I urge support of the
conference report.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the distinguished ranking member of the
Committee on Commerce.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding me the
time, because I would like the attention of my good friend from
California.
He speaks with great enthusiasm on the subject of reforms. I would
remind the gentleman that last year or, rather, the year before last
under the old rules, this body got from our Committee on Energy and
Commerce, in agreement with the Committee on Judiciary, a bill which
did substantially the same thing that this bill does right here. I
would remind him that the matter was handled expeditiously and
splendidly; that the delay occurred not here but in the Senate.
If the gentleman wishes, I will be delighted to inform him as to why
the delay occurred and why that bill never passed the Senate. But I do
not think the gentleman has any reason to discuss the failure of the
old rules or the success of the new rules on the basis of this.
We gave this House a bill which does substantially the same thing. It
was almost identical in language, in intent, and in substance to that
which we have before us at this particular time, and I hope my good
friend, for whom I have enormous respect and affection, will now be
absolved of his very unfortunate error on this.
Since I have mentioned him I will be delighted to yield to him.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. I would simply say that
it is true that we were able to move legislation. But I believe very
sincerely that the reforms that we put into place as it came to
jurisdiction and also the referral process has helped us move more
expeditiously with this legislation in the 104th Congress. And I
believe, also looking at the issue of unfunded mandates and reform of
unfunded mandates, that was another very important reform which allowed
us to deal with this.
Mr. DINGELL. Reclaiming my time, again with great affection for the
gentleman, it would serve him and this body well if he were to seek
more suitable subjects for making a claim that reform has accomplished
anything of merit.
I would conclude by making the observation that this is a good bill.
I want to commend the distinguished chairman of the committee, the
chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Markey], and the members of the committee.
Last year, I would remind my dear friend from California, we got 423
votes. I hope we will do as well today. Four hundred twenty-three is a
large number of votes.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Klug].
Mr. KLUG. Mr. Speaker, the rule we have before us this afternoon and
soon the bill itself that will follow has to do with changing law, and
changing law that has affected the communications industry since the
1930's, but it is not just about changing law. It is also, I think, in
many ways about fundamentally changing a mind-set, because for nearly
60 years in this country we have run communications based on a
philosophy which said the bureaucracy, that the Government set prices,
that the Government restricted access and restricted competition, and
fundamentally it was the Government picking winners and defining
losers.
This bill and this rule that precedes the bill will usher in a new
era of competition where the market instead will pick winners and
losers, and ultimately the major winner in all of this will be
consumers. It is the way that consumers won when we deregulated the
airline industry in 1978, and it is the way that consumers won when we
deregulated the trucking industry back in 1980. Those changes have
resulted in savings of hundreds of billions of dollars to the economy.
{time} 1330
Obviously it helped the economy grow; this bill, at its roots, is in
many ways a jobs bill as well, because it is a jobs bill based
fundamentally on innovation and on new products.
This bill is also about choice. It used to be we only had one long-
distance phone company in this country. Today there are thousands of
them. Soon consumers will also have choices about local telephone
service, about cellular, and if you hate your local cable company, you
will have other cable companies to pick from, and you will have more
options in broadcasting, more options in satellites.
All of those choices will be based on price, on service, and on
performance and not ultimately on Government regulation.
I would like to congratulate the chairman of the committee, the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], for his terrific work, and the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] for his terrific work as well, and
also congratulate my fellow conferees. It is time to end 60 years of
Government control, Mr. Speaker. It is time to vote for this rule and
trust consumers and the markets to make decisions and no longer trust
Government regulators.
[[Page H1148]]
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time.
I must say if this bill is being brought to the floor under sunshine
and happiness, I am not happy. I think this rule should be defeated. I
think it is outrageous this rule is waiving the 3 days so that we can
look at it.
I was on the conference committee, and at 7:40 a.m. this morning was
the first time I got the full bill. Let me show you what was attached
to it. These are the proposed technical corrections. This is page 1,
this is page 2, this is page 3, this is page 4, this is page 5, and
this is page 6. We have six little pages of technical corrections.
Now maybe the rest of you are quicker than I am, but we have been
trying desperately to go through all of this and figure out what these
six pages of technical corrections are really going to do to this bill,
and because we do not have 3 days, we have until probably about an hour
and a half from now, that is it, and I think when you are talking about
a seventh of the economy, when you are talking about something that is
trillions of dollars, and I come from a district that is very impacted
by this, because we have regional Bells, we have long-distance
companies, we have got cable companies, we have got all of that. We
would like to know what this means, and the idea of ``trust us, hurry
out and vote,'' I think is wrong.
I mean, I figure I am getting my pay, and I am getting paid to be
here, and to be here and study this, and I would hope that we know what
is in it before we vote for it.
For all of those who think they know all of this and this is fine and
this is terrific, let me tell you about one of the things that we
stumbled over as we looked at this page upon page of corrections and
stuff. We came across section 1462, which I think very few people know
is even in this bill. What it says is absolutely devasting to women.
What we are going to do is put on a high-technology gag rule with
criminal penalties. Have a nice day.
Yes, let me read what this brings into the law through one of these
little things. It says that any drug, medicine, article, or thing
designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion or for any
indecent or immoral use or for any written or printed card, letter,
circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of those giving any
kind of information directly or indirectly, no matter what it means,
this is going to be deemed a Federal penalty, a Federal crime, if you
transmit any of this over the Internet. Now, this is a gag rule that is
off the charts.
One of the major things people wanted to use Internets for was
telemedicine. Does that mean anything dealing with women's reproductive
parts they cannot do this? There will be people standing up and saying,
``Oh, Schroeder, cool off, that will never be considered
constitutional.'' Well, if we are going to vote for things we think are
not constitutional and we are going to do it in this fast a pace, we
ought to give at least part of our salary to the judges. We are just
going to mess everything up over here and send it over to them. I do
not think so.
Let me tell you what lawyers tell me. Lawyers tell me do not be so
quick about saying this is not constitutional; there was a pre-1972
case that upheld the constitutionality of this. And, second, we are
talking about an international Internet. That is what our companies
want to get on. And we have now seen one case with Germany talking
about standards and what they want, and this, I think, would only give
some international gravitas to limiting what you can say about women's
reproductive health in and around the Internet no matter which side of
this issue you were on.
I just think, why can we not have a little technical amendment
correcting this? I think you are going to hear all sorts of people say
we did not intend that, we did not mean it, let us have a colloquy, oh,
let us, oh, let us, oh let us. Why can we not fix this? Why are not
women in the world important enough if you can have six pages of
technical corrections for every other thing you can possibly think of,
some megacorporation wants? Why can we not take a deep breath and do
this? Does that mean somebody's golf schedule in Florida is going to
get upset? I do not know.
I must say I am very saddened we are coming to the floor with this
rule saying we have to waive the 3-day proposal where we have time to
read this and digest this, because I really do not think anybody here
could pass a test. I really do not.
I was on the conference committee. Let me tell my colleagues, those
conference committees were absolutely nonsubstantive. We would all
gather in a room, best dressed, the TV camera from C-SPAN II would pan
us, that would be the end of it.
I really hope people vote ``no'' on this rule.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Stearns].
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentlewoman from Colorado
[Mrs. Schroeder], I just cannot resist to use your own words, ``Oh,
Mrs. Schroeder, cool off.'' Those are your words.
You and I were both in the conference committee together. You and I
were both there; we voted on the Internet legislation together; and, in
fact, I think we voted the same way.
What we have here in this bill is satisfactory. In fact, it is
superior, and it is something that we all voted together, both
Democrats and Republicans.
So I am not clear if I understand your argument.
Let me just continue with what I was going to say. This follows up my
good friend, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder], when he talked
about Bill Gates, the founder and CEO of Microsoft. This is what he
said, my friends: ``We are beginning another great journey; we aren't
sure where this one will lead us either, but again I am certain this
revolution will touch even more lives. The major changes coming will be
in the way people communicate with each other. The benefits arising
from this opportunity and this revolution will be greater, greater than
brought by the PC revolution. We are on the verge of a bold new era of
communications.''
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule so that this body
may have the unique chance to ensure this country's ability to realize
the great potential of the dynamic communications revolution that Mr.
Gates speaks about. Today we have this opportunity, because the
Republican majority has brought forth a bill that is important not only
for the industry but for this country.
Mr. Gates is right when he says this revolution will touch even more
lives in addition to creating new jobs in the communications industry.
It will have a dramatic impact on consumers. It will bring about
benefits of greater choice, of new and exciting communications services
with lower prices and even higher quality. Americans will have greater
access to information and education than ever before.
Clearly the consumer will be the winner.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule on this legislation that
will take the American consumers and customers further than they ever
imagined.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, this is an enormous bill in its scope and
the effort that went into it and the number of years that were spent
putting this together.
Certainly there are parts of this legislation that I do not agree
with. But in general, I think what has been put together here is
positive.
We live in a new world, and if we are going to make the technological
changes that work for families, our laws have to keep pace with the
changing times that we are in. We cannot move into a computer age with
laws that were written for the radio age.
I believe this bill will help bring us into the 21st century in a way
that will not only create jobs but make us more efficient as a country
in this ever challenging global economy that we now are in.
Beyond that, this bill gives parents, and I would like to focus
attention for one second on this question of giving
[[Page H1149]]
parents more control over the sex and the violence that is coming into
our homes today. Most of the kids in our society will see 8,000 murders
and over 100,000 acts of violence on television by the time they finish
grade school. That is appalling. We need to do more to help those
parents who do take responsibility for their kids.
Now, the V-chip, that is something that is part of this package. It
was the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] and the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and others who have been active on this
issue. We have got that in here. The V-chip included in this bill will
help parents let in Sesame Street and keep out programs like the Texas
Chainsaw Massacre.
Mr. Speaker, it is parents who raise children, not government, not
advertisers, not network executives, and parents who should be the ones
who choose what kind of shows come into their homes for their kids.
It was a little more than a week ago when the President of the United
States stood directly in back of me and spoke to the Nation, and the
most memorable words from my standpoint in that speech were parents
have the responsibility and the duty to raise their children. This bill
will help immeasurably in that direction, so I urge my colleagues to be
supportive of the conference report when it comes before us in the next
few minutes.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], the chairman of the subcommittee
that produced this bill.
(Mr. FIELDS of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, very seldom, if ever, in a
legislative career, can we as legislators, can we as trustees for the
American people, feel that we have made a significant contribution for
the country's future--made a real difference. Well, today we can.
Mr. Speaker, this is a watershed moment--a day of history--and, not
just because this is the first comprehensive reform of
telecommunication policy in 62 years--not just because we have been
able to accomplish what has eluded previous Congresses--which, in and
of itself, is of particular pride to me and my fellow subcommittee
members, on both sides of the aisle, because we have all worked many
long hours to get to this watershed moment.
No, Mr. Speaker, this is a historic moment because we are decompart
mentalizing segments of the telecommunications industry, opening the
floodgates of competition through deregulation, and most importantly,
giving consumers choice--in their basic telephone service, their basic
cable service, and new broadcasting services as we begin the transition
to digital and the age of compression--and from these choices, the
benefits of competition flow to all of us as consumers--new and better
technologies, new applications for existing technologies, and most
importantly, to all of us, because of competition, lower consumer
price.
For the last 3\1/2\ years this telecommunication reform package has
been my life--I have lived with it, eaten with it, and not to sound
weird, even dreamed of telecommunication reform while I'm asleep--so,
believe me when I say that I am glad that we are bringing this
important issue to closure. In fact, this closure reminds me of my
newest daughter, Emily, born 14 days ago--the labor has been long,
we've been through some painful contractions, but at the birth of
something so magnificent, you're a proud father--and today, I am one of
many proud fathers.
{time} 1345
And, just as I cannot predict what Emily will be like as she grows
up, few of us really understand what we are unleashing today. In my
opinion, today is the dawn of the information age. This day will be
remembered as the day that America began a new course--and none of us
fully appreciate what we are unleashing. I do know that this is the
greatest jobs bill passed during my service in Congress. I really
believe that because of the opportunities afforded because of
deregulation that there will be more technology developed and deployed
between now and the year 2000 than we have seen this century. I believe
that this legislation guarantees that American companies will dominate
the global landscape in the field of telecommunication.
And, if asked what I am most proud of in this legislation--besides
the fact that my subcommittee members on my side of the aisle have
worked as a team in developing this legislation--is the approach that
we initiated in January 1995, when we as Republicans assumed leadership
on this issue and invited the leading CEO's of America's
telecommunication companies to come and answer one question. That one
question was, What should we do as the new majority in this dynamic age
of telechnology to enhance competition and consumer choice? The
telephone CEO's said that they didn't mind opening the local loop if
they could compete for the long distance business that was denied to
them by judicial and legislative decision. The long distance CEO's said
that they didn't mind the Bell's competing for the long distance
business if the local loop was truly open to competition and if they
could compete for the intraLATA toll business which was denied to them.
And, the biggest surprise to us was when Brian Roberts of Comcast Cable
on behalf of the cable industry said that they wanted to be the
competitors of the telephone companies in the residential marketplace.
In fact, the next day, I called Brian and Jerry Levin of Time-Warner to
have them reassure me that their intent was to be major players and
competitors in the residential marketplace. After that discussion, I
told my staff that we needed a checklist that would decompartmentalize
cable and competition in a verifiable manner and move the deregulated
framework even faster than ever imagined. And we came up with the
concept of a facilities based competitor who was intended to negotiate
the loop for all within a State and it has always been within our
anticipation that a cable company would in most instances and in all
likelihood be that facilities-based competitor in most States--even
though our concept definition is more flexible and encompassing. It is
this checklist which will be responsible for much of the new
technologies, the major investments that will be flowing, and the tens
of thousands that will be created because of this legislation.
And, in talking about opening the loop, I don't want to take away the
other deregulatory aspects of our legislation such as the more
deregulatory environment for the cable industry as they prepare to go
head-to-head with the telephone companies. The streamlining of the
license procedures for the broadcasting industry and the loosening of
the ownership restrictions.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on and on and be excited about what
this bill means to Americans, to our consumers.
Let me just end at this particular time in saying once again, I am a
proud father, along with many others. There are many who have brought
this day to us. It is a watershed moment, a historic moment, and it is
a day that all of us can be extremely proud of.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York [Ms. Slaughter].
(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the previous speaker, we are not sure what
we are unleashing here. But I am rising in objection today to at least
another measure to restrict women's constitutional rights that has
appeared in this bill. I am referring to section 507 of the
Communications Act of 1995 that would prohibit the exchange of
information regarding abortion over the Internet. I ask you, is the
abortion issue going to be attached and is it at all germane to this
bill?
This is the 22d vote of the 104th Congress on abortion-related
legislation that has whittled away at the constitutional and legal
rights of American women. Today we have the opportunity to pass a
widely supported bipartisan telecommunications bill. Instead of
focusing on the important issues at hand, we are being forced again for
the 22d time during Congress to vote on a measure to further reduce
women's constitutional rights.
Abortion is a legal procedure. To prohibit discussion of it on the
Internet is
[[Page H1150]]
clearly a violation of first amendment rights.
The penalties involved are severe. If an unknowing person were to
even bring up the topic on the Internet, the penalty would be 5 years
imprisonment; 10 years for a second or subsequent charge, even for the
mention of the word.
I want the American people to know that this Congress has
systematically whittled away at a woman's right to choose to such a
degree it has been virtually destroyed. If it is to be Federal policy
that every conception will result in birth, then the Federal Government
must also assume responsibility for children. We must assume the
responsibility to provide for the emotional, the educational needs, and
the financial well-being of every child.
This Congress has expressed no interest in assuming responsibility
for children. Instead, measures have been proposed and many have passed
that further rescind the current limited Federal obligations to the
children of the United States. There have been drastic cuts to the
earned income tax credit for working parents with children, to Head
Start, to nutrition, and to health programs. These are the very
programs that address the needs of the poor and disadvantaged children.
The implication in this Congress is that once a child is born, we
really do not care what happens to it. That child may starve, may be
abused, or even be beaten to death, and, in the case of the Northeast,
may freeze to death because hearing assistance for the poor has now
been taken away. The only thing that matters is that the child be born.
After that, it is somebody else's problem.
This prohibition to rights of privacy and to the first amendment
rights does not belong in this bill.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Goss], my colleague on the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague from
Georgia for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. I think it is an
appropriate rule that finally takes this piece of legislation which has
been moving up and down the field now, lo these many years, and finally
pushes it over the goal line. I think we have come to that point.
I would like to extend my congratulations to all those involved on
the primary committee and all the other committees that looked at it,
but particularly the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Oxley], and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell]. This has truly
been a remarkable product.
This is a bill that is good for all, long distance, regional, new
technology, broadcasters, cable, but consumers as well. Consumers,
Americans, the people we work for, are going to benefit from this.
Yes, there are still some problems out there with local government on
revenue and zoning issues. We have assurances they are worked out, and,
if they are not, then we can deal with them. Areas of duopoly, the
question of free press and diversity of opinion, which are essential to
our democracy, these are areas that may need further attention, and we
have been promised we will get them if necessary. This is a big,
important positive step we are taking, and I urge support.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Georgia for yielding me this time
and I urge support of this rule. As has been explained this is a
standard rule providing for consideration of a very complex conference
report.
Mr. Speaker, this telecommunications bill is a remarkable piece of
legislation in its overall effect. I commend everyone who has worked so
hard to create a fair, bipartisan bill--wading through some of the most
complicated and controversial issues of our day. According to Chairman
Bliley, who worked tirelessly on this project, we have arrived at a
compromise that will open the communications industry to real
competition and reduce Federal involvement in decisions that are best
made by the free market.
As America enters the 21st century, telecommunications will be at the
forefront of our continuing economic development. Congress simply
cannot keep up with the development and innovation that are propelling
us into the information age of the 21st century. For too long we have
been constrained by the foundations built by policies written more than
60 years ago, long before cable television and cellular phones became
reality.
With a bill this monumental, differences of opinion will inevitably
continue to exist--and the chairman himself has underscored that this
is not a perfect product. I am pleased, however, that during conference
the rights-of-way and zoning issues were adequately resolved. As I
understand it, localities will maintain their ability to control the
public rights-of-way and to receive fair compensation for its use.
Federal interference is unnecessary, as long as localities do not
discriminate. I think that is fair.
One remaining concern I have is with restrictions on ownership of
television stations. Diversity of opinion--and a truly free press--are
hallmarks of American society.
In our rules meeting last night, the chairman said that, although the
House provision on dupolies--dual ownership of stations in a single
market--was not included, guidelines for the FCC in handling such cases
were. He assured me that he would look further into the matter of small
television markets like those in my district in southwest Florida,
where the rules on dual ownership may have unintended negative
consequences.
Mr. Speaker, these are relatively small issues given the entire scope
of S. 652 and I am hopeful the bill will be signed into law. I
understand from Chairman Bliley that necessary technical corrections
and clarifications will be taken care of in the future and I look
forward to addressing these final concerns when we work on the fine-
tuning of this historic bill.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of the rule. One, the need to dispense
with the normal procedures is another example of rewarding one's own
incompetence. The bill should have come out in time. The notion that we
are ready to leave cuts no ice, because there is no reason why the bill
could not have been out before.
But I also have serious substantive problems with the bill. Indeed, I
have always believed that self-denial was an important thing for
leaders to show. But I think my Republican friends have gotten
confused. Instead of self-denial, they have used this bill for self-
repudiation.
First we have the Speaker of the House who talked very loudly about
how he was opposed to censorship. He was going to keep our electronic
communications free of censorship. Despite that, we now have a bill
which is heavily weighted with censorship. We have a bill which will
interfere with free expression through the Internet and elsewhere.
But there is another example of self-repudiation that troubles me
deeply, and that is the decision by the majority leader of the Senate
to abandon his very brief crusade on behalf of the taxpayers. I was
very pleased when Senator Dole spoke out against a giveaway of access
to the spectrum on the part of the Government to broadcasters, and I
was briefly with the Senator. But I made the mistake of, I do not know,
going to lunch. When I came back from lunch, I was alone on the
battlefield, at least as far as the Senator is concerned.
This is a Congress that has been making severe cuts in programs that
deal with the economic needs of some of the poorest people in this
society, and we have been told that we must rely more on free
enterprise, less on Government entities and Government regulation, and
people must be on their own. But It now turns out they forgot to say,
those who said that, that they are for free enterprise for the poor and
free enterprise for the workers.
But when it comes to wealthy interests in this society, free
enterprise is apparently a very scary thing. Because the broadcasters,
among the wealthiest people in society with the largest concentrations
of wealth, are to get for free access to the spectrum.
I know there is going to be language and people have written letters
which in effect say we are passing a bill that says one thing, but
please let us pretend that what we say, we did not really say. I
believe that the Senate majority leader was right to criticize the
giveaway of access to the spectrum, and I think it is wrong to drop
that out.
I should note parenthetically we are apparently about to do the same
thing
[[Page H1151]]
with agriculture. Free enterprise for the poor, no subsidies there, no
regulation when we are talking about the environment. But when we are
talking about growing peanuts or sugar, oh, well, wait a minute, free
enterprise was not meant for that.
I hope this rule is defeated and taxpayers interests are vindicated
in the protection of the spectrum.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to observe that I am troubled deeply
that the gentleman from Massachusetts is deeply troubled, and I shall
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], the ranking member of the committee.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
I would like to begin by complementing the gentleman from Louisiana,
Jack Fields, and the gentleman from Virginia, Tom Bliley, and all of
the Republicans that worked on this bill for so long. They conducted
the process in a bipartisan fashion. It is to their credit.
I want to compliment the gentleman from Michigan, John Dingell and so
many of the Democrats on our side who have worked on this bill for so
long, 4 years, 4 long years. A similar bill passed near unanimously in
1994. The gentleman from Georgia, Newt Gingrich, in fact came to the
well and called it the model of bipartisan legislation in 1994. In the
Senate that year, unfortunately, it kind of died in the final 3 or 4
weeks. But it was revived in January of last year, and, working
together in that spirit of bipartisanship, the bill was brought back
out here on the floor again today.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how much I appreciate the way in which
the gentleman from Texas, Jack Fields, at the subcommittee level,
especially for me, comported himself, and worked to make sure that this
bill would be done in away that dealt with the ideas that had to be
dealt with.
This bill is critically important, because it unleashes a digital
free-for-all. We take down the barriers of local and long distance and
cable company, satellite, computer, software entry into any business
they want to get in. Once and for all, all regulations are taken down.
The premises are the same as they were in the bill a couple of years
ago: More jobs and more choices. Now, there is a kind of paradox,
because the larger companies are going to have to lay off people in
many instance in order to remain competitive with the thousands of
companies who are going to be creating new jobs on this information
superhighway, with the net result of many tens and hundreds of
thousands of new jobs, far more than have ever existed in this area of
the American economy.
{time} 1400
For me, that premise of competition has always been the preferred
mode that we should use in order to accomplish this revolution in our
society.
Mr. Speaker, the bill contains many very important provisions. It
contains a V-chip that will allow parents to be able to protect their
children against the 500 channels, which is, by the way, only shorthand
for infinity, because that is how many channels will be coming into
people's homes. They are going to need an effective way of blocking out
programs which are offensive to their families.
It also preserves the concepts of localism and diversity which are so
critical in our telecommunications marketplace so that we will have
many voices in each marketplace.
It also will ensure learning links built into each classroom, K
through 12, through preferential rates which is going to be absolutely
essential in the post-GATT, post NAFTA world. As we let the low-end
jobs go in our society, we have to make sure that every child K through
12 is given the skills that they are going to need in order to compete
for these high-skilled jobs that otherwise will go to any other place
in the world that is providing their workers with those skills. It also
expands very important privacy protections to individuals in their
relationships with these very large companies.
People will be able to go to a Radio Shack and be able to purchase
their own set-top box. They will be able to purchase their own
converter box, their own modem. They will be able to purchase any
product which is accessible to this information superhighway. It
offers, in other words, real competition in the consumer electronics
marketplace as well.
We have come a long way in the last 15 years in this country. Back
then we had one big telephone company. We had three television stations
in most communities in the country. Today we have faxes. We have
digital satellites. We have personal computers. We have cellular
phones. We have brought this country into the Information Age. As the
gentleman from Texas said, we now unleash this new revolution, for 15
years and beyond, in terms of massive changes that are unimaginable,
but will be the product of competition.
The worldwide web was unimaginable 15 years ago, and today it is the
coin of the realm in the marketplace. It was Government funded and
created, but nonetheless it has been transmogrified into a private
sector wonder. So we are all going digital. Life will never be the
same. This bill helps to speed up that process ever further.
So in conclusion, again, I cannot compliment the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Dingell] enough for his leadership, for his vision on
this bill. I cannot thank enough the gentleman from Virginia, as well,
for the way in which this process has been guided and especially to my
good friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields]. I want to
compliment him for the gentlemanly way that he treated all of us
throughout this process. He has been a good friend to all of us and
ultimately to the consumer of this country by the competition that is
unleashed in this bill. I hope that everyone supports this rule and
ultimately supports the bill when it comes to the floor in final
passage.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin], a member of the Committee on Commerce.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, several years ago in this House we debated a
thing called program access in connection with the cable industry. It
was a grand debate. It produced an override of a veto on that cable
bill that year. But more importantly, what it produced for America was
competition in the cable industry.
It produced for America the direct broadcast television system [DBS]
that is now providing cable programming to millions of Americans who
did not live within reach of a cable system. It is providing
competition in cable prices and cable programming to millions of
Americans who were limited before the advent of [DBS] to buying their
programming from a single monopoly supplier. We celebrated then a small
victory for competition and for consumers.
Has it worked? It has worked marvelously. There is finally real
competition in cable programming. Consumers enjoy more choices. There
are better products and better prices. We have just begun to see the
benefits of that competition today. Today is a grand celebration of
that notion of competition. Today, in a bipartisan way, we unleash the
spirit of competition in all forms of telecommunications services, from
telephones to computers, to services dealing with video programming,
and data services to interexchange services that are going to link us
as Americans together as one like never before and give us access to
the world and the world access to us as never before.
This is a grand celebration of a free market system, of competition,
and of Americans in their government trusting Americans in the
marketplace to make the right decisions for themselves.
It is a grand strategy to unleash the technologies that geniuses are
working on in labs across America and give them a chance to become
tomorrow's Microsoft.
Second, it is our opportunity to take these decisions away from a
judge who has been making telecommunications policy for America and to
return those decisions to the people's House, the Congress of the
United States of America.
Finally, this bill predicts between 1.5 million and 3.5 million new
jobs for Americans without us having to tax and spend one dime to get
this economy going. This bill unleashes new jobs and new job
opportunities the likes of which this Congress has rarely had a
[[Page H1152]]
chance to do. Imagine: 1.5 million to 3.5 million new families earning
money instead of being dependent upon somebody else. That is what this
bill promises for us, a little promise that we ought to keep on this
House floor.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Dingell], the former chairman, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Bliley], our chairman, and particularly the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Fields] for the extraordinary work he has done. Let us celebrate their
hard work, and let us celebrate the spirit of America, a free-market
system and competition. Let us vote this good bill out today.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan [Mr. Conyers], the distinguished ranking member of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating the
gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] for supporting my discussion
last night in the Committee on Rules, when the Congress had finished
its work, when we found out that this conference report would be
brought forward today in less than 24 hours, violating the most time-
honored rule in the procedures of bringing legislation to this House.
The same rule that Speaker Gingrich has spoken with great passion
about; the same rule that the gentleman from New York, Mr. Solomon,
chairman of the Committee on Rules, has preached to me about across the
years, this rule is now being violated for reasons that I cannot
fathom.
Let me make it clear that this is the most important 111 pages in a
conference report in terms of economic consideration that my colleagues
will ever in their careers deal with. The fact of the matter is that
there are very few, if any, persons that have read, not to mention
understand, what is in the report. That is why we have a 3-day rule
layover.
Now, in all fairness, I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia
[Mr. Bliley] because he has cooperated with me throughout this process
as a conferee. In all fairness, I want to commend the dean of the
House, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], who has not only
afforded me every courtesy but has allowed me to have 20 minutes in the
debate that will shortly follow.
But ask this question, as I urge my colleagues to return this rule to
the committee: Who knew that that noxious abortion portion was in the
conference report? Nobody, until it was found out about last night. Who
knows many of the other provisions, I have a whole list of them here,
that could not possibly be known about, much less understood in terms
of their implications?
The reason that we honor the 3-day rule is simply because there are
no amendments possible on a conference report. We can only vote it up
or down. We should have a 3-week delay on this measure, since we are
going out this afternoon. So 3 days would be a very modest
consideration. That is why I am asking that this measure be returned to
the Committee on Rules for the observation of the 3-day rule.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Hastert], another member of the Committee on Commerce.
(Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I really want to congratulate the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Fields], the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], the former chairman on the other side
of the aisle--folks who have been working on this issue for a long,
long time and have put together a very, very good piece of legislation.
I might add that the piece of legislation that came out of here in
the last Congress, also worked on by a group of folks, but it came out
on suspension. It never got out of the Senate, back to the House in a
conference. The gentleman from Michigan was talking about this bill,
when my Democrat colleagues passed a bill on the suspension calendar
with no amendments, 40 minutes of debate, and that was it. So take the
difference in what is happening here.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on the
Communications Act of 1995. I have worked on this legislation for
several years, and I am proud to come to the floor to support a bill
that will unleash $63 billion in economic activity.
Reform of the 1934 Communications Act is long overdue. The road map
for our communications future, outlined in the 1934 Act and the courts,
still anticipates two-lane back roads rather than the fast paced super-
highways we have today. The U.S. District Court began the trip toward
competition when it issued the modified final judgment [MFJ] that
required the breakup of ``Ma Bell'' 10 years ago and brought
competition to the long-distance industry. Back then, I served as
chairman of the Illinois Joint Committee on Public Utility Reform. We
were charged with the task of revamping Illinois law to bring more
competition. At that time, it was assumed that competition was not a
good thing for local telephone service; the local telephone loop was
viewed as a natural monopoly. Now, because of advances in technology,
we see that it is possible--and preferable--to bring competition to the
local loop.
But the MFJ has not brought about the full fledged competition
consumers needed in every part of the communications industry. Thus,
Congress has risen to the task of planning the road-trip so that
American consumers will have more choices and innovative services, and
will pay lower prices for communications products.
The map shows that there are pitstops along the road to competition.
Everyone is in favor of ``fair'' competition as industries begin to
contend in each others businesses. Fair competition means local
telephone companies will not be able to provide long-distance service
in the region where they have held a monopoly until several conditions
have been met to break that monopoly.
First, the local Bell operating company [BOC] must open its local
loop to competitors and verify it is open by meeting an extensive
competitive checklist. Second, there must be a facilities-based
competitor, or a competitor with its own equipment, in place. Third,
the Federal communications Commissions [FCC] must determine that the
BOC's entry into the long-distance market is in the public interest.
And fourth, the FCC must give substantial weight to comments from the
Department of Justice about possible competitive concerns when BOC's
provide long-distance services.
Consumers can be sure BOC's won't get the prize before crossing the
finish line.
As a member of the Commerce Committee, I worked on several provisions
of this bill, and was the author of section 245(a)(2)(B) of H.R. 1555
which deals with the issue of BOC entry into in-region inter-LATA
telecommunications service. This provision has become section
271(c)(1)(B) in the conference report. Section 271(c)(1)(B) provides
that a BOC may petition the FCC for this in-region authority if it has,
after 10 months from enactment, not received any request for access and
interconnection or any request for access and interconnection from a
facilities-based competitor that meets the criteria in section
271(c)(1)(A). Section 271(c)(1)(A) calls for an agreement with a
carrier to provide this carrier with access and interconnection so that
the carrier can provide telephone exchange service to both business and
residential subscribers. This carrier must also be facilities based;
not be affiliated with BOC; and must be actually providing the
telephone exchange service through its own facilities or predominantly
its own facilities.
Section 271(c)(1)(B) also provides that a BOC shall not be deemed to
have received a request for access and interconnection if a carrier
meeting the criteria in section 271(c)(1)(A) has requested such access
and interconnection; has reached agreement with the BOC to provide the
access and interconnection; and the State has approved the agreement
under section 252, but this requesting carrier fails to comply with the
State approved agreement by failing to implement, within a reasonable
period of time, the implementation schedule that all section 252
agreements must contain. Under these circumstances, no request shall be
deemed to have been made.
Mr. Speaker, we have given serious debate and consideration to this
bill. Now is the time for Congress to set reasonable guidelines for our
communications future. All signs point to competition ahead, so I urge
my colleagues to give the Telecommunications Act of 1996 a green light.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
{time} 1415
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
[[Page H1153]]
Let me acknowledge that this is a very important bill. This is a
historic occasion. I should add my thanks and appreciation to the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] and the gentleman from Virginia
[Mr. Bliley] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] and the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] and the ranking member, the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers], for the efforts that have been
exhibited. But I do want to raise some concerns as to this rule.
I remained in my office even up to 10 o'clock and had noted that the
rule had not come out, even as late as 10 p.m. last evening. Final
changes were brought to our office in the early part of the evening.
Conferees were still working, and the Committee on Rules, again, did
not report until very late. For a bill this important, this is an
unfair process.
The conference committee members have not had an opportunity to
adequately review these technical changes and the report language. This
bill will revolutionize the telephone, long-distance, cable, and
broadcast industries and have a far-reaching economic impact upon our
country.
For example, it allows telephone companies to enter into other lines
of business. It deregulates cable rates and expands broadcast
ownership. It has been one of the most heavily lobbied bills in the
recent history of this House.
Many Members of the House and Senate have had major concerns. In
fact, we have only had three meetings. Some would argue that there has
been inadequate notice. I know there are good intentions. I would
simply ask for consideration.
In addition, we have had an additional absurdity with the inclusion
of language prohibiting the transfer of legally sound information
regarding choice and family planning. That means that legitimate
physicians in their offices cannot transfer information.
Mr. Speaker, I have to raise a question over what is the big rush to
consider this legislation now. Members can use the 3-week recess to
adequately review this bill. I cannot believe anyone can seriously
object to a 3-week delay in considering this bill.
Therefore, I would ask Members to oppose this rule at this time so
that we can add a measure of fairness to this historic occasion,
recognizing the good work that has been done but understanding that it
is also important for individual Members to likewise do their work and
to ensure that they have had the proper time to review, the proper
notice and as well to be able to assure their constituents, as I know
they would want to do, that this is in fact both historic but fair and
open-ended and responsive to the concerns that have been raised.
I ask again for 3 weeks and ask again for reconsideration of the
rule.
Mr. Speaker, I must rise to express my concerns regarding the rule on
the telecommunications conference report. This legislation is one of
the most comprehensive bills to be considered in the 104th Congress. It
is the most extensive revision of our communications laws since the
Communications Act of 1934.
I am concerned about the process relating to bring this bill to the
floor. The final changes to the conference report were not distributed
until last night. Furthermore, the conference report was signed by
House conferees last night and filed very late last night. Finally, the
Rules Committee considered the rule on the report late last night. This
is a terrible and unfair process for such an important bill. The
conference committee members have not had an opportunity to adequately
review these technical changes and the report language.
This bill will revolutionize the telephone, long-distance, cable, and
broadcast industries and have a far-reaching economic impact upon our
country. For example, it allows telephone companies to enter into other
lines of business, it deregulates cable rates, and expands broadcast
ownership. It has been one of the most heavily lobbied bills in the
recent history of the House. Most Members of the House have not had the
opportunity to study this bill. Additionally, members of the House and
Senate conference committee have had major concerns regarding the
conference committee process, particularly the inadequate notice of
staff meetings, the level of participation by all staff. An additional
absurdity is the inclusion of language prohibiting the transfer of
legally sound information regarding choice and family planning. That
means that legitimate physicians cannot communicate office to office on
medical procedures. There were only three meetings of the conference
committee.
Mr. Speaker, I have to raise the question over what is the big rush
to consider this legislation now. Members can use the 3-week recess to
adequately review this bill. I cannot believe anyone can seriously
object to a 3-week delay in considering this bill. Therefore, I must
oppose this rule on this conference report.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
To paraphrase Mr. Churchill, This is not the end. It is not even the
beginning of the end. It is perhaps the end of the beginning, the
beginning of an explosion in technology and invasion.
It will not be many years before Americans are going to be startled
and people across the world startled about the kinds of goods and
services and products coming through their television receivers in
their homes.
This, I believe, would be the most important job-creating bill of my
career in this House. I was excited to have been privileged to be a
part of working on this since early summer as a member of the Committee
on Rules and even involved in some of the technology. It was an
example, the whole process, of how the two sides can work together and
cooperate.
I have already commended the chairmen, the gentleman from Virginia
[Mr. Bliley], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], and the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]. I think the ranking members, the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Markey], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] were very helpful
through the whole process. They worked with each other. I was proud to
be a part of that process.
I would like to say especially, nobody helped me more in the rule and
dealing with the amendments than the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Dingell]. I want to say, I am grateful.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The question is on
the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 337,
nays 80, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 24]
YEAS--337
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
[[Page H1154]]
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Luther
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Mfume
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Rush
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--80
Abercrombie
Becerra
Beilenson
Brown (OH)
Clay
Clyburn
Coburn
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
DeFazio
Dellums
Deutsch
Dixon
Durbin
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Frank (MA)
Furse
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Harman
Hilliard
Hinchey
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnston
Kaptur
Lantos
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney
Martinez
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
Meyers
Miller (CA)
Mink
Morella
Nadler
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Rivers
Roybal-Allard
Sabo
Sanders
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Slaughter
Stark
Stokes
Thompson
Thurman
Torres
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Waters
Watt (NC)
Woolsey
Yates
NOT VOTING--16
Ackerman
Brown (CA)
Bryant (TX)
Callahan
Chapman
DeLay
Fattah
Filner
Gejdenson
Gibbons
Hastings (WA)
Rogers
Rose
Taylor (NC)
Torricelli
Wyden
{time} 1439
Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas and Messrs. GUTIERREZ, STARK, and SCHUMER
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas and Mr. HOYER changed their vote
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 353, I call up
the conference report on the Senate bill (S. 652) to provide for a
procompetitive, deregulatory national policy framework designed to
accelerate rapidly private sector deployment of advanced
telecommunications and information technologies and services to all
Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to competition, and
for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). Pursuant to House
Resolution 353, the conference report is considered as having been
read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
Wednesday, January 31, 1996, at page H 1078.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley]
will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Dingell] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. CONYERS. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to claim the traditional 20
minutes in opposition under the rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Michigan support the
conference report?
Mr. CONYERS. No, sir, I do not.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I believe I can save the body a little
time. Mr. Speaker, I support the conference report. I believe the
gentleman's claim for the 20 minutes is entirely correct. I would urge
the Chair to grant the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] 20
minutes, 20 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], and 20
minutes to myself.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(a) of rule XXVIII, the
time will be divided 3 ways.
The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] will be recognized for 20
minutes, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] will be recognized
for 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] will be
recognized for 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley].
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Burr].
(Mr. BURR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the telecommunications
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my colleagues, particularly
Chairman Bliley, the ranking member, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Fields, Mr.
Markey, as well as Chairman Hyde, on this historic reform of our
Nation's telecommunications laws. Passage of this landmark bill will
foster job growth, product innovation, consumer savings, and economic
development across all sectors of our economy. The legislation's
removal of barriers to competition in the telephone, cable, and
broadcast industries will open markets and increase competition in the
communications industry that will better prepare our Nation to enter
the new millennium.
I am pleased that the conferees have included in their final report a
provision I sponsored in H.R. 1555 that I believe embodies the
deregulatory intent of this legislation--a provision which adjusts one
piece of a larger regulatory barrier that has been ignored by
regulators since its inception.
Since 1981, Bell operating companies have been prohibited from
jointly marketing their local telephone service and cellular services
due to an FCC rule requiring the establishment of an RBOC cellular
separate subsidiary. This rule was originally intended to apply to the
predivestiture AT&T when the Commission determined that AT&T and one
other company would be granted the two cellular licenses in each
market.
During the breakup of the old Bell system, AT&T transferred its
cellular licenses to its newly established offspring, the regional Bell
operating companies. Because the Commission was in the process of
overseeing the breakup of the world's largest corporation, the FCC
understandably had precious little time to worry with establishing new
rules for RBOC participation in the then nascent cellular business.
Consequently, the Commission determined that RBOC cellular operations
would be conducted under the same rules that had been developed for
AT&T, and that the Commission would review the matter in 2 years. Given
the circumstances, such a decisions seems understandable. What is not
understandable, however, is what has happened in the meantime--nothing.
For 14 years the FCC has ignored its commitment to review the
necessity of its RBOC cellular separate subsidiary rule. While cellular
exploded into a dynamic, competitive industry, the FCC took no action.
In fact, when the Commission established the rules for a new wireless
service, PCS [Personal Communications Service]--designed to compete
with cellular, the FCC determined that RBOC's would not be required to
establish separate subsidiaries for their new PCS wireless services.
Yet, inexplicably, the Commission said there was not enough information
on the record to warrant removal of the RBOC cellular separate
subsidiary rule.
It is difficult to imagine how the FCC could acquire enough
information to establish a new set of wireless competitors [PCS] to
cellular, determine separate subsidiaries would not be required for
RBOC PCS services, and still state there was not enough information to
justify removal of the cellular separate subsidiary
[[Page H1155]]
rule. Understandably, the companies impacted by this decision found it
difficult to understand and so has the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit.
In a ruling issued November 9th, the Appeals Court found the FCC's
PCS rulemaking decision on the cellular separate subsidiary rule to be
arbitrary and capricious stating:
Instead, the FCC simply stated that the record in the
Personal Communications Service Rulemaking proceedings was
insufficient to determine whether to eliminate the structural
separation requirement. We believe this to be arbitrary and
capricious given the somewhat contradictory findings of the
FCC during the course of the Personal Communications Service
rulemaking and related proceedings. If Personal
Communications Service and Cellular are sufficiently similar
to warrant the Cellular eligibility restrictions and are
expected to compete for customers on price, quality, and
services, what difference between the two services justifies
keeping the structural separation rule intact for Bell
Cellular providers?
The court remanded to the Commission for further proceedings its
decision on this rule. Such action normally would be encouraging for
the companies involved. Unfortunately, regulators like regulation. More
than 1 month after the sixth circuit's ruling ``that the time is now
for the FCC to reconsider whether to rescind the structural separation
requirement'' the Commission has taken no action, notwithstanding the
court's belief that ``time is of the essence on this issue.''
It simply makes no sense to require Bell cellular operations to
remain in separate subsidiaries--and prohibited from joint marketing
opportunities--when the Commission has determined that no such
requirements are necessary for Bell PCS operations. The appeals court
acknowledged this fact stating:
BellSouth's strongest argument is perhaps that the factual
predicate which justified the structural separation
requirement is no longer valid. BellSouth points out that the
FCC believes that the safeguards such as mandatory
interconnection enforceable by individual complaint process
suffice to combat possible discrimination and cross-
subsidization in the Personal Communications Service
industry. BellSouth claims that this removes any
justification retention of the structural separation
requirement for Cellular licenses, and that the FCC has
arbitrarily failed to remove restrictions . . . We agree with
BellSouth that the time is now for the FCC to reconsider
whether to rescind the structural separation requirement . .
. after fourteen years, further delay in determining whether
to rescind the structural separation requirement severely
penalizes the Bell Companies at a time when the wireless
communications industry is exploding and changing almost
daily. The disparate treatment afforded the Bell Companies
impacts on their ability to compete in the ever-evolving
wireless communications marketplace.
I am glad this legislation takes the first, important step toward
restoring parity in this area by allowing Bell operating companies to
jointly market their cellular and local services. It is my hope, that
after 14 years and a clear rebuke from the court, the FCC will take the
next step and review its cellular separate subsidiary rule.
Mr. Speaker, once again I congratulate the committee chairman and the
subcommittee chairman on producing this historic legislation.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to yield 3
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields],
chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance of the
Committee on Commerce, without whose Herculean efforts we would not be
here today.
(Mr. FIELDS of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
{time} 1545
Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for
that statement. I had the opportunity during the rule to talk about the
substance of this bill and what it means for America and our consumers.
I want to take my time just to say thanks.
First and foremost, I want to acknowledge the commitment and
leadership of our chairman, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley],
who has been a constant source of support and encouragement as we move
this legislation forward.
I also want to thank the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] for
the way he has led the efforts of the minority. As always, it was with
conviction and the style of the true gentleman that Mr. Dingell is.
I also want to thank my good friend and confidant, my fellow voyager
in this effort, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], for the
many long hours of debate and consultation, the pizza in his office,
the pizza in my office, but always ending any disagreement with a
smile. I hope that all of us involved have set the standard of how
Congress can work together over very difficult and contentious issues.
I also want to be effusive in praise of my colleague, the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], the vice chairman of our subcommittee; the
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer], the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Barton], the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert], the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Stearns], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Paxon], the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Klug], and our two freshmen stars, the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Frisa] and the gentleman from Washington
[Mr. White], our team.
I would also be remiss if I did not thank and recognize the hard work
of Mike Regan, Cathy Reid, Harold Furchtgott-Roth, and Mike O'Reilly,
and on the Democratic side of the aisle, Colin Crowell and David Leach,
David Moulton of Mr. Markey's staff, Alan Roth and Andy Levin, of Mr.
Dingell's staff.
Not only do I want to acknowledge David Leach for his hard work, but
I want to publicly apologize to him for all the practical jokes that I
have played on him for the last 3\1/2\ years.
I also want to give special recognition to Steve Cope, our
legislative draftsman. He is an unsung hero who gave us late hours away
from his family and lost many weekends during the course of this
multiyear process. He has my highest respect and my gratitude.
Certainly last, but not least, I want to give special, special
recognition to Christy Strawman, my telecommunications expert, because,
like others, she is an unsung hero that has been pivotal in bringing
this issue to fruition. She has been a star in this process.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, this is a special, watershed,
historic moment. We are at the dawn of the Information Age. What we do
today is vitally important to the future of our country. Not only am I
proud of the package; I am also proud of the process in which we
debated and formed this legislation, working with both sides of the
aisle, bringing this policy, this legislation, to fruition.
The inclusion in the telecommunications bill of the requirement that
a television rating code be established by the Federal Communications
Commission for all television programs and that broadcasters be
required to transmit to a V-chip the ratings given to their programs is
plainly unconstitutional.
Any legislation that requires the rating of television programs based
on their inclusion of violence, depictions of sexual conduct or the
like is a content-based burden on speech. That is just what the first
amendment does not permit. Inserting the Federal Government into the
area of deciding what should be on television or how the content of
television programs should be rated sets a dangerous precedent that
threatens the very rights the first amendment is designed to protect.
Think about the rating system Congress is today requiring. There is
the problem of how any such system can distinguish between programs
that show what we might call senseless or gratuitous violence and those
that depict violence in a way that educates, informs, or edifies. It is
hard to believe that we're prepared to say that any violence
whatsoever, in any context whatsoever, should be treaded the same way
and subjected to blocking by the same V-chip--whether it's
``Schindler's List'' or ``Nightmare on Elm Street,'' ``Gandhi'' or
``The Terminator.''
But as soon as the FCC tries to make a distinction for rating
purposes between what is ``bad violence'' that should be blocked and
what is ``good violence'' that should not be blocked, it is squarely in
the business of regulating speech based on its content or perceived
value to society and therefore squarely in violation of the first
amendment. At the same time, if the Commission throws up its hands and
acknowledges that it cannot make such distinctions and thus requires
every program containing any element of violence at all to get a V
rating, the V-chip will be activated across the board and across the
Nation in a way that blocks out valuable contributors to public
awareness and knowledge. The effect will be that some--perhaps many--
programs that are genuinely good for children or adolescents to see
will not be seen by them. What's more, we will be creating a situation
in which Government would be leading the public to view all treatments
of violence as equal, thus washing away good, serious, thoughtful
programs with real merit along with the junk.
V-chip legislation is a blunt instrument, far blunter than the first
amendment allows. The
[[Page H1156]]
public would be far better served by Government encouraging the
development of technologies that allow parents to make discriminating
choices, real choices, for their children based on their own values and
their own beliefs.
The likelihood that the V-chip provision will be held
unconstitutional is increased by the reality, known to every Member of
this body, that the bill is actually being proposed not for the purpose
of ``empowering'' parents but of pressuring broadcasters to change the
television programming they offer. We all have our own views about what
should be on television. The first amendment bars us from putting those
views into law.
Finally, recent court decisions have raised the most serious doubts
about the continued viability of the whole notion that broadcasters
must receive only second class first amendment treatment. The FCC
itself determined in the Syracuse Peace Council case that the explosion
of new outlets for speech has seriously undermined the rationale for
permitting more intrusive regulation of broadcasters than of other
media. That is even more true today than it was 8 years ago when that
case was decided. Recent opinions of the chief judges of both the D.C.
Circuit and the Eighth Circuit Courts of Appeals have likewise
maintained that there is no longer any basis for according broadcasters
more limited protection from Government intrusion than the First
Amendment gives to cable operators, record companies or the print
press. Most first amendment scholars have come to the same conclusion.
In any event, whether or not a new, more speech-protective, first
amendment standard is utilized in a court challenge to this
legislation, the law cannot withstand analysis under any first
amendment test.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, today we will vote on a historic bill. This
telecommunications bill is historic because it finally will bring to an
end the era of telephone and cable television monopolies. The bill is
historic because it will trigger technological innovation as we have
never seen before--stimulating economic growth and job creation by
small and large businesses alike. But just as striking as these
developments undoubtedly will be, the bill is historic for another
important reason. It demonstrates that Congress can work together in a
bipartisan way to produce a bill that serves the interests of all
Americans.
I congratulate my friends, Chairmen Bliley and Fields, Representative
Markey and others, for their unrelenting pursuit of bipartisan
agreement on this bill. This is the way Congress is supposed to work,
and I think we can all learn from this example. Chairman Bliley
approached this task in a very productive way, soliciting advice and
offering compromise at many points along the way. He managed the
process extremely well, as evidenced by the widespread support that he
has mustered--not only in the conference and in the House--but in every
part of an industry that usually can agree on little else. Chairman
Bliley and others working on this conference committee should be
congratulated and given our thanks for the remarkable product before us
today--a product that was in the making for several Congresses before
this one, and that will finally make its way to the President's desk
and beyond.
This telecommunications bill certainly will change the way Americans
get their information and entertainment. No longer will consumers have
just one company to choose from for the provision of local telephone or
cable television service. Companies will be able to offer any or all of
these services, giving consumers for the first time the ability to buy
packages of telecommunications services that provide them with the best
value at the lowest price.
This bill also will enable parents to make intelligent choices about
what television programming is appropriate for their children. It
requires that new television sets be equipped with a computer chip
designed to automatically detect the rating that has been assigned to
any television show. And it encourages television broadcasters to
develop a voluntary rating system that will provide parents with the
means to discern whether programming coming into their home is age-
appropriate for their children.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few special words about the concerns of
our local elected officials, and most especially our mayors. This
conference agreement strengthens the ability of local governments to
collect fees for the use of public rights-of-way. For example, the
definition of the term ``cable service'' has been expanded to include
game channels and other interactive services. This will result in
additional revenues flowing to the cities in the form of franchise
fees. In addition, the legislation also lifts the FCC's current ban on
the imposition of franchise fees for telephone companies' open video
systems. That too will increase revenues to the cities.
At the same time, State and local governments retain their existing
authority to impose fees on telecommunications providers, including
cable companies that offer telecommunications services. Finally, and
perhaps most important, section 303 does not preclude a local
government from lawfully managing public rights-of-way with respect to
a cable company's telecommunications services. In short, Mr. Speaker,
we have listened closely to our local officials, who have done a good
job of helping us understand their concerns, and have crafted a bill
that not only retains their current authorities but, in many instances,
strengthens them. We appreciate the support for the bill we have
received from the National League of Cities and the National
Association of Counties.
Is this a perfect bill? No. No bill as large and complex as this one,
addressing so many difficult issues, is ever perfect. But it is an
excellent piece of legislative work. it will open telecommunications
markets in a fair and balanced manner--it provides American businesses
with a level playing field on which to compete, and it removes those
aspects of government regulation that are antiquated while ensuring
that every American continues to receive affordable service.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to pay tribute to the incredible
efforts of our staff, who put in countless hours, often working into
the wee hours of the morning, to bring this bill to fruition. Our
special thanks go to the minority staff of the Commerce Committee,
especially David Leach, who has worked on the legislation for several
Congresses and guided our successful efforts in the House in the last
Congress, and Andy Levin, who joined our staff as a new counsel at the
start of the conference and truly received a baptism under fire. I want
to thank Colin Crowell and David Meulton from the staff of subcommittee
ranking member Ed Markey for their hard work, as well as the staff of
the Judiciary Committee. From the Commerce Committee, Mike Regan and
Cathy Reid did outstanding work in coordinating these efforts. And as
always, the legislative counsel, Steve Cope, and his colleague on the
PUHCA issue, Pope Barrow, did their usual extraordinary job. We
appreciate all the staffs' hard work.
Once again, I congratulate my colleagues on this achievement, and I
urge all Members to join me in approving this conference agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very, very important that we
look as carefully as we can at a trillion-dollar-a-year industry
legislation.
First of all, I want to tell everybody in this Chamber, there are a
lot of things I like in the bill; I like a lot of things. The Antitrust
Division part that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and I
worked on tirelessly is in this bill, and I support it strongly. We
keep the Antitrust Division at the center of the telecommunications
debate, and I am pleased that we all agreed upon that. It is important
that the Department of Justice have an enhanced role in reviewing the
Bell entry into long-distance, and we have been very successful.
But, Mr. Speaker, let us get to the reservations. Are there any?
Well, you have not read the 111-page conference report, so I will give
you the benefit of just a few of the problems that you might want to
know about before we cast this ballot in less than an hour.
The cable provisions allow for deregulation before the advent of
competition, raising the specter of unregulated monopoly. Two
Congresses ago
[[Page H1157]]
we spent considerable time and energy, and the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Dingell] was leading that, in adopting legislation to protect
consumers from price-gouging; and we were finally able to pass the bill
over President Bush's veto.
This Congress, we have new leadership that has decided that consumer
protection must take a back seat to industry demands, although a small
concession to consumers was made by delaying the date of price
increases until 1999.
This is not Conyers, this is the Consumer Federation of America:
``Even with the significant improvements, the bill does not stimulate
enough competition. For every step taken to encourage competition, the
bill has provisions which undermine its goal. Instead of promoting
head-to-head competition between cable, telephone, and other
communications companies, the bill allows mergers and corporate
combinations that will drive up cable rates and undercut competition.''
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay homage to the gentleman
from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], the
gentleman from Michigan and ranking member [Mr. Conyers], the gentleman
from Michigan and ranking member [Mr. Dingell], Senator Pressler, and
all of the staffs who have done enormously important work in bringing
this to fruition.
This legislation represents the most sweeping communications reform
legislation to be considered in this House in over 60 years. It will
establish the ground rules for our national telecommunications policy
as we enter the 21st century.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from New York
[Mrs. Lowey] for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the gentleman
from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the chairman of the committee, and other
members of the conference in bringing this very important conference
report to the floor today. However, I would like to bring to your
attention one section that is very troubling to me.
Section 507 amends the preexisting section of the Criminal Code (18
U.S.C. 1462) and applies it to the Internet. Now, it was my
understanding that your intent behind adopting this provision was to
place reasonable restrictions on obscenity and indecency on the
Internet. I support this goal.
However, a section of this act may be construed to curb discussions
about abortion. It seems to me this provision would certainly be
unconstitutional.
Mr. HYDE. Well, reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree
with the gentlewoman that any discussion about abortion, both pro-life
and pro-abortion rights, is protected by the first amendment guarantee
of free speech; and I certainly agree, nothing in title V should be
interpreted to inhibit free speech about the topic of abortion.
Further, it is correct that our principal intent in adopting this
provision was to curb the spread of obscenity and indecency, speech
that is not protected by the first amendment, from the Internet in
order to protect our children.
I yield to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, with that assurance, I feel comfortable
supporting this bill, and I hope that my colleagues who were also
concerned about this provision will now feel comfortable supporting
this bill. I thank the gentleman for clarifying this point and for his
hard work on this bill.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her courtesy.
As the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee--because of our
committee's jurisdiction over the Federal antitrust laws and Federal
regulatory procedures--I approached this important and complex issue
from a competition and deregulatory policy perspective. Clearly, the
proposed entry of the regional Bell operating companies into the long
distance and manufacturing markets raises fundamental antitrust
questions. After all, it is an antitrust consent decree, commonly known
as the Modification of Final Judgment or ``MFJ,'' that now prevents
them from entering those businesses, and it is that decree that we are
now superseding. Also, the telecommunications industry is a highly
regulated one at both the Federal and State levels. In my view, less
regulation is a desirable goal in this instance, because it will spur
further technological innovation, greater competition and job
development.
On May 2, 1995, I introduced H.R. 1528, the Antitrust Consent Decree
Reform Act of 1995. H.R. 1528 proposed to supersede the MFJ and replace
it with a quick and deregulatory antitrust review of Bell entry by the
Department of Justice. Under H.R. 1528, the Bell companies would have
been able to apply to the Department of Justice for entry into the long
distance and manufacturing markets immediately upon the date of
enactment. The Department of Justice would then have had 180 days to
review the application under a substantive antitrust standard--
specifically, Justice would have been required to approve the
application unless it found by a preponderance of the evidence that
there was a ``dangerous probability that the Bell company would use its
market power to substantially impede competition in the market'' it was
seeking to enter.
This approach received broad, bipartisan support within the Judiciary
Committee. In fact, on May 18, 1995, the full Judiciary Committee
reported H.R. 1528 by a 29 to 1 recorded vote. unfortunately, however,
it became apparent that there was not broad-based House support for a
potential Department of Justice veto over Bell entry.
The Commerce Committee, on the other hand, understandably looked at
this issue from a telecommunications policy and Communications Act
perspective. Its bill--H.R. 1555--which ultimately became the House
legislative vehicle, required the Bell operating companies to meet
various Federal and State legal requirements to open their local
exchanges to competition before they are allowed into the long distance
and manufacturing businesses.
In keeping with the long tradition of our Committees sharing
jurisdiction over the subject of telecommunications legislation, we
cooperated closely on the formulation of the manager's amendment to
H.R. 1555, which was adopted on the House floor in August. A number of
the provisions originally contained in my bill--H.R. 1528--were moved
into H.R. 1555 through the manager's amendment. Furthermore, following
House passage, our two committees continued to work closely together
representing the House position in the House-Senate conference
committee.
Again, I strongly believe the conference report on S. 652 is good
legislation that will move America's telecommunications industry
forward into the 21st century. Allow me now to briefly explain a few
key provisions that were of particular importance to Judiciary
Committee conferees.
The conference agreement does include a strong consultative role for
the Attorney General. Under this part of the agreement, the Department
of Justice will apply any antitrust standard it considers appropriate,
which may include the dangerous probability standard from H.R. 1528, to
applications by the Bells to enter long distance. After conducting its
antitrust analysis, DOJ will provide its views in writing to the FCC
and they will be made a part of the public record relating to the
application. The conference agreement enhances this consultative role
by requiring that the FCC give substantial weight to the views of the
Attorney General. By giving this special status to the views of DOJ,
the conferees acknowledge the long experience and considerable
expertise it has developed in this field. Under this approach, the FCC
will have the benefit of a DOJ antitrust analysis before the Bell
companies are allowed to enter the long distance market.
The conference agreement also enhances DOJ's role in another way--it
repeals section 221(a) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
Sec. 221(a)). Congress enacted section 221(a) when local telephone
service was viewed as a natural monopoly. The statute currently
provides that when any two telephone companies merge, the FCC should
determine whether the merger will be ``of advantage to the persons to
whom service is to be rendered and in the public interest.'' If so, the
FCC can render the transaction immune from ``any Act or Acts of
Congress making the proposed transaction unlawful.''
However, the conferees concluded that section 221(a) could
inadvertently undercut several of the provisions of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. The critical term ``telephone company''
is not defined. In the new world of competition, many companies will be
able to argue plausibly that they are telephone companies. When two
telephone companies merge, section 221(a) allows the FCC to confer
immunity from any act of Congress--including the Telecommunications Act
of 1996--after performing a public interest review.
Thus, if it were not repealed, section 221(a) could easily have been
used to avoid the
[[Page H1158]]
cable-telco buyout provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
Any cable company that owned any telephone assets could become a
telephone company and be bought out by an RBOC by applying for immunity
under this section. Likewise, if section 221(a) were broadly
interpreted, it might also have been used to get around all the other
line of business restrictions in the bill, including the restriction on
RBOC entry into long distance. Fortunately, the conference agreement
closes this loophole.
In addition, because section 221(a) allowed the FCC to confer
immunity from antitrust statutes, it would have allowed mergers between
telecommunications giants to go forward without any antitrust review.
Mergers between these kinds of companies should not be allowed to go
through without a thorough antitrust review under the normal Hart-
Scott-Rodino process. A public interest review by the FCC simply is not
a strong enough tool to prevent these giants from destroying
competition and recreating a monopoly system through a series of
megamergers.
By returning review of mergers in a competitive industry to the DOJ,
this repeal is consistent with one of the underlying themes of the
bill--to get both agencies back to their proper roles and to end
Government by consent decree. The FCC should be carrying out the
policies of the Communications Act, and the DOJ should be carrying out
the policies of the antitrust laws. The repeal does not affect the
FCC's ability to conduct any review of a merger for Communications Act
purposes, for example transfer of licenses. Rather, it simply ends the
FCC's ability to confer antitrust immunity. In an era of competitive
telecommunications giants, mergers between them ought to be reviewed in
the same fashion as those in all other industries.
The Judiciary Committee conferees have also focused on the provisions
contained in title VI, which address the effect of the bill on other
laws. With respect to the various consent decrees, the conference
agreement adopts a new approach to the supersession of the Modification
of Final Judgment--now called the AT&T Consent Decree in the conference
agreement--and the GTE consent decree. It also adds language
superseding the AT&T-McCaw Consent Decree--McCaw Consent Decree. The
Conference Committee sought to avoid any possibility that the language
in the conference agreement might be interpreted as impinging on the
judicial power. Congress may not by legislation retroactively overturn
a final judgment. Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 115 S.Ct. 1447
(1995). On the other hand, Congress may by legislation modify or
eliminate the prospective effect of a continuing injunction. Robertson
v. Seattle Audubon Society, 503 U.S. 429 (1992); Plaut, 115 S.Ct. 1447;
Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 59 U.S. 421 (1856).
To avoid any possible constitutional problem, the Conference
Committee adopted the following new approach. Rather than superseding
all or part of these continuing injunctions, the conference agreement
simply provides that all conduct or activities that are currently
subject to these consent decrees shall, on and after the date of
enactment, become subject to the requirements and obligations of the
act and shall no longer be subject to the restrictions and obligations
of the respective consent decrees. The new approach did require some
adjustment in other parts of the bill, including provisions: No. 1, to
continue existing equal access and nondiscrimination requirements for
local exchange carriers, No. 2, to adjust the definition of RBOC to
exclude successors that do not provide wireline service, and No. 3, to
continue activities allowed under existing MFJ waiver requests that
have been ruled on before enactment. I believe that each of these
adjustments has been made successfully and that this new approach will
insulate the bill from constitutional attack.
In other parts of title VI, the conference agreement retains the
House language that expressly provides that no State tax laws are
unintentionally preempted by implication or interpretation. Rather,
such preemptions are limited to provisions specifically enumerated in
this clause. One of those enumerated preemptions, section 602, is the
local tax exemption for providers of direct to home satellite services.
The conference agreement adopts the House language with minor
modifications to insure that the exemption extends only to the
provision of programming.
Section 602 reflects a legislative determination that the provision
of direct-to-home satellite service is national, not local in nature.
Unlike cable and telephone companies which utilize public rights-of-way
to provide service to their subscribers, providers of direct-to-home
services utilize satellites to provide programming to their subscribers
in every jurisdiction. To permit thousands of local taxing
jurisdictions to tax such a national service would create an
unnecessary and undue burden on the providers of such services. Local
taxing jurisdictions are therefor preempted from taxing the provision
or sale of direct-to-home satellite services. Direct-to-home satellite
service providers and others in the distribution chain are exempted
from collecting and remitting local taxes and fees on the sale of such
services. The power of the States to tax this service is not affected
by section 602. Again, States may, if they wish, share the revenue thus
collected with their local municipalities.
The conference agreement also contains important language, patterned
after provisions contained in H.R. 1528--and H.R. 1555--on electronic
publishing. Under the conference agreement, the Bell companies will be
able to enter the electronic publishing business through a separated
affiliate or a joint venture. They will be required, however, to
provide services to small electronic publishers at the same per-unit
prices that they give to larger publishers. This will allow smaller
newspapers and other electronic publishers to bring the information
superhighway to rural areas that might otherwise be passed by.
The conference agreement joins the House and Senate provisions on
alarm monitoring. Under the new section 275, Bell operating companies
and their affiliates, who have not already entered the alarm monitoring
business, may not provide alarm monitoring services for 5 years from
the date of enactment.
BOC's that were lawfully engaged in the alarm monitoring business on
or before November 30, 1995, however, may continue to provide such
services. There are no prohibitions under current law barring such
companies from alarm monitoring, and they should be permitted to
operate and expand their business just like any other company in our
free market system. This legislation should not cause these existing
businesses to be unduly penalized after having lawfully entered the
business. Moreover, consumers should not be denied the benefits that
this additional competition will bring.
It is important to emphasize that it is perfectly legal for the
regional Bell companies to be in the alarm monitoring business right
now. Since an appellate court decision in 1991, the information
services restriction originally in the MFJ has been lifted and the Bell
Companies have been free to provide alarm monitoring and other
information services. Only one Bell company--Ameritech--has chosen to
enter into the alarm business. But they did so in reliance on the law
as it was--and still is--at the time they entered. They have invested
company resources and assets in this business.
It would simply not be fair for Congress to step in and change the
rules of the game for a company that has lawfully chosen to enter into
this business. We are not prohibiting any other existing alarm company
from expanding their business, nor are we prohibiting them from
acquiring other companies. In my view, legislation that alters the
legal rights and/or obligations of private parties should be
prospective rather than retroactive. So, for those Bell companies that
have chosen not to enter the alarm business, prospective restrictions
for a period of 5 years are not unfair. That is, once this law is
passed, a Bell company not already in the business on the date of
enactment could not enter for another 5 years. It would be quite a
different matter to limit the actions of a company that already is in
the business.
Accordingly, such ``grandfathered'' BOC's may grow their alarm
monitoring business through customer or asset acquisitions; however for
5 years from the date of enactment, such a company may ``not acquire
any equity interest in or obtain financial control'' of an unaffiliated
alarm monitoring company. It should be noted that any BOC providing
alarm monitoring services will operate under specific
nondiscrimination, cross-subsidy, and customer information obligations
and protections. After 5 years, there will be no entry, equity, or
financial control restrictions on BOC provision of alarm monitoring
services.
Finally and importantly, title V of S. 652 will prohibit using and
interactive computer service for the purpose of sending indecent
material to a specific person under the age of 18. It also outlaws the
display of indecent material without taking precautions to shield that
material from minors. Defenses to these violations are provided to
assure that enforcement will focus on those who knowingly transmit such
material to minors. In fact, the conference report expressly provides
an absolute legal defense to any on-line access provider, software
company, employer, and any other, ``solely for providing access or
connection to or from a facility, system or network not under that
person's control,'' so long as that person is not involved in ``the
creation of the content of the communication.'' Employers are also
protected so long as the actions of their employees fall outside of the
scope of their employment or if the employer has not ratified the
illegal activity.
This provision codifies the definition of indecency that has been
upheld in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978), and Sable
Communications of California, Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115 (1989).
Material that is ``indecent'' is ``material that, in context, depicts
or describes, in terms patently offensive as
[[Page H1159]]
measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory
activities or organs.'' Thus, the standard contained in S. 652 is fully
consistent with the Constitution; it is not unconstitutionally vague.
The underlying legal principle of the indecency concept is patent
offensiveness. Such a determination cannot be made without a
consideration of the context of the description or depiction at issue.
As applied, the patent offensiveness inquiry to be made involves two
distinct elements: the desire to be patently offensive, and a patently
offensive result. Given these inquiries, it is clear that material with
serious redeeming value is quite obviously intended to edify and
educate, not to offend. Therefore, it will be imperative to consider
the context and the nature of the material in question when determining
its patent offensiveness.
Furthermore, title V clarifies current Federal obscenity statutes so
it is undeniable that those laws cover the use of a computer to
distribute, transport, or import obscene matter. The regulation of
Internet indecency contained in the conference report is not based on
what should be seen or discussed via the vast compute network, but
rather on where or how it is made available. The provisions of the bill
are not the most restrictive means, on the contrary, they are
reasonable and narrowly tailored so not to overly burden one's right to
engage in indecent communications while at the same time achieving the
Government's policy objective of protecting our children.
Concerns have been raised about the amendment to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1462
regarding an interactive computer service. Section 1462 generally
prohibits the importation or transportation of obscene matter.
Subsection 1462(c) prohibits the importation or interstate carriage of
``any drug, medicine, article, or thing designed, adapted, or intended
for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use; or any
written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet,
advertisement, or notice of any kind giving information, directly or
indirectly, where, how, or of whom, or by what means any of such
mentioned articles, matters or things may be obtained or made * * *.''
We are talking about the advertisement, sale or procurement of drugs
or medical instruments or devices, used to bring about an abortion.
This language in no way is intended to inhibit free speech about the
topic of abortion, nor in any way to limit medical or scientific
discourse on the Internet. This amendment to subsection 1462(c) does
not prohibit serious discussions about the moral questions surrounding
abortion, the act of abortion itself, or the constitutionality of
abortion. This statutory language prohibits the use of an interactive
computer service for the explicit purpose of selling, procuring or
facilitating the sale of drugs, medicines or other devices intended for
use in producing abortions. The statutory language is confined to those
commercial activities already covered in section 1462(c) of title 18
and in no way interferes with the freedom of individuals to discuss the
general topic of abortion on the Internet.
Finally, section 508 will protect kids from sexual predators by
making it a crime--punishable by up to 10 years in prison--for anyone
to use a facility in interstate commerce, including a computer, to
induce or solicit a child under 18 to engage in prostitution or other
illegal sexual activity.
In conclusion, I want to thank Commerce Committee Chairman, Bliley,
Subcommittee Chairman, Fields, Ranking Member, Conyers, Ranking Member
Dingell, and Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Pressler and their
staffs for their cooperation in this monumental effort.
In short, as American advances into the 21st century, this
telecommunications legislation is tremendously important. It is my firm
belief that this bill means more jobs for Americans and will greatly
enhance American competitiveness worldwide. It is high time that we
replace this overly restrictive consent decree with a statute that
recognizes the telecommunications realities of the 1990's. I intend to
support the conference report on S. 652 because it will accomplish
these goals.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Boucher].
(Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the
conference report on telecommunications reform and urge its adoption by
the House. This measure will create competition in our
telecommunications markets, first by freeing telephone companies to
offer cable TV service inside their telephone service areas, and for
the first time, bringing genuine competition to the cable market.
Second and correspondingly, by allowing cable companies and others to
offer local telephone service and bringing genuine competition for the
first time to the local telephone market.
Third, the bill will enhance competition in the long-distance
industry by freeing the seven Bell operating companies to offer
interLATA long-distance service.
Fourth, by making the equipment market in the United States more
competitive by enabling those same seven companies to manufacture
equipment.
A number of benefits will inure from the passage of this bill.
Consumers will enjoy better pricing, as competition comes into markets
that today are characterized as monopolies or near monopolies. New
services will be introduced by the new entrants into these various
markets.
Perhaps most importantly, this is the means by which our country will
obtain a modernization of its telecommunications network. Telephone
companies to offer cable service will deploy broad-band technologies
throughout their local exchanges. Cable companies to offer local
telephone service will install switches in their coaxial networks, and
the United States will then have the most modern network that exists
anywhere in the world.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to urge support for the conference report.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder], who has worked tirelessly across the years
for improved telecommunications legislation.
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time, and I thank him for his leadership.
I just want to say that I really do want to find some way that I
could vote for this, but ever since I was in law school, I always
learned I should be prepared, and I should read what it is I am voting
on.
I am standing here to say to my colleagues there is no way in the
world that I can read fast enough to get through these 6 pages of
technical corrections that we received today, single-spaced, by the
way, and the bill, and put it all together and have any idea what I am
really reading. So I am very upset that we would waive that 3-day
period, move forward, and so forth.
One example of the type of things that we might uncover, let us hope
that this is the only thing in there, that there would be nothing else
that we would uncover, but this little nugget that we uncovered about
referencing in the old COMSAT Act that people have been talking about,
and that the gentleman, our chairman from Illinois and the gentlewoman
from New York just had the colloquy about, was one very major thing
that everybody said, oh, we did not intend to do this. Oh, my goodness,
how did this happen?
{time} 1500
It is kind of interesting to me that we had time for all these other
technical corrections, but we did not have time for a technical
correction to clear up something that nobody intended to do, yet we are
going to have everybody confused about what in the world is it we
really meant as we did this.
And my problem is, we can have an agreement that abortion, the word
abortion, the big A word, is protected speech under the Constitution,
which I certainly agree with. But the question is what happens when you
go on the Internet internationally? Does the Constitution go
internationally? Does it follow you through the lines? I am not sure.
Telemedicine is one of the things we had hoped we would be able to
move out and move into as a big area. What does all of this mean vis-a-
vis that? We do not have an answer.
Furthermore, unfortunately on this act, there is a decision that came
down pre-1972 saying this act is constitutional. So we may have a
colloquy saying, ``I hope it isn't constitutional,'' we have got a
decision saying it is constitutional. I do not know. I do not have time
to go do all of that work in this period of time we have before we are
to vote on it.
But I think that it is not a good idea to rush this through when it
is such a significant part of our economy, and we are now seeing this
gag rule come through which we hope is not a gag rule, but it might be
a gag rule, and we do not know what the other 6 pages of single-spaced
things might hold, too.
I do not know what happened to being thoughtful. It is only the 1st
day
[[Page H1160]]
of February. Do we really have to take the whole rest of the month off?
Could we not read and understand this? Because we are coming up with
things that we are going to live by and we are going to be held by for
the next 50 years.
Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day, and I am only sorry that we could not
know more things about it.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton], a member of the committee.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to also express my support
to the leadership on both sides of the aisle that have pushed this
legislation. Special thanks to my good friend, Jack Fields, who is
retiring at the end of this session and this is going to be his legacy.
He gets triple gold stars for his work.
I want to give a special thought on the local control of the right-
of-way. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak, and myself and Senator
Hutchison in the Senate have worked on that. I had a phone conversation
with the president of the League of Mayors this morning, the gentleman
from Knoxville, TN. They are supporting the bill.
I would urge all Members who have had some concerns expressed by
their mayors to be supportive. We have worked out language in the bill
and in the conference report that gives cities absolute guarantees to
control their right-of-way and to charge fair and reasonable
nondiscriminatory pricing for the use of that right-of-way.
This is a good piece of work, it is comprehensive, it is
revolutionary. As my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Boucher], said, this opens up seamless interactive communications for
all Americans, and I would urge an ``aye'' vote on the bill.
Mr. Speaker, section 702 of the bill adds a new section 222(e) to the
Communications Act which would prohibit any provider of local telephone
service from charging discriminatory and/or unreasonable rates, or
setting discriminatory and/or unreasonable terms or conditions, for
independent directory publishers buying subscriber list information.
Subscriber list information is essential to publishing directories.
Carriers that charge excessive prices or set unfair conditions on
listing sales deprive consumers and advertisers of cheaper, more
innovative, more helpful directory alternatives.
Under section 257 of the bill, within 15 months from the date of
enactment, the FCC is to undertake rulemakings to identify and remove
barriers to entry for small businesses involved with telecommunications
and information services. Clearly, the requirements of section 702 with
respect to subscriber list information fall within this rulemaking
requirement.
As the FCC determines what constitutes a ``reasonable'' price for
listings, it seems clear that the most significant factor in that
determination should be the actual, or incremental cost of providing
the listing to the independent publisher. This approach assures that
providers get back what it actually costs them to deliver the listings
to a publisher without being allowed to ``load'' the price with
unrelated costs and cross-subsidies.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California [Ms. Eshoo].
(Ms. ESHOO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report
for this telecommunications act.
I would like to start out, Mr. Speaker, by paying tribute to the
distinguished gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], chairman of our
committee, to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields],
chairman of our subcommittee, who really worked tirelessly; to the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], ranking member; to David Leach
of our staff and Lance Scott of mine, thank you for all the hard work
that you have put in.
Mr. Speaker, as the Representative of Silicon Valley, CA it is clear
to me that making the phone industry more like the computer industry
would be a great boost to our Nation's economy.
That is why nearly 9 months ago today I stood with my commerce
committee colleagues to announce my original cosponsorship of this
historic legislation and rise today as a member of the conference
committee.
This legislation sets down a clear framework, or checklist, for
deregulating the telephone industry and has put in place detailed rules
to protect consumers from certain monopolies.
In addition, the bill ensures rapid development and implementation of
new technologies. Of particular interest to me is its mechanism to
connect our Nation's children to the Internet and its requirement for a
V Chip which parents can use to block television shows harmful to their
children.
I am also very proud to report that a provision I authored to limit
the role of the Federal Communications Commission in setting standards
for the computer and software industry has been included without change
in the final bill. With this language, consumers will be free to use
their computers to coordinate the functions of their futuristic homes,
as opposed to being forced to use foreign-made television sets because
of an FCC mandate. I say let the market decide.
Mr. Speaker, as with most legislation, I am not totally satisfied
with this bill. I am concerned about provisions in it that may
dangerously decrease the number of voices on our public airwaves.
I also strongly object to the bill's provision to hold businesses and
Internet users liable from transmitting loosely defined material over
computer networks. The Internet is not a U.S. Government network, and
giving Federal officials indiscriminate censorship authority in this
area mocks constitutional protections of free speech.
I urge expeditious judicial review of this provision to ensure that
free speech protections are not undermined.
Despite these reservations which are serious ones, I believe our
Nation must embrace the promise of the 21st century, an American
century, marked by a new era of telecommunications.
I encourage my colleagues to support the conference report.
Mr. Speaker, there is one provision of the act that has been of
particular interest to me as well as a wide range of companies and
trade groups associated with the computer and information processing
industries. Section 301(f) of the act is a provision that I authored
and originally introduced during the Commerce Committee markup as an
amendment to H.R. 1555. It limits the role of the Federal
Communications Commission [FCC] in setting standards that may affect
the computer and home automation industries. It directs the FCC to set
only minimal standards for cable equipment compatibility, maximize
marketplace competition for all features and protocols unrelated to
descrambling of cable programming, and ensure that the FCC's cable
compatibility regulations do not affect computer network services, home
automation, or other types of telecommunications equipment. In short,
this section keeps the Government out of high-technology standards and
prevents the FCC from setting standards for the computer and
communications services of tomorrow.
Section 301(f) of the Telecommunications Act is a small but key
ingredient for achieving the purpose of this historic bill: To embrace
the future by allowing new technologies to flourish with minimum
Government interference. Just as the act helps to open markets by
eliminating Government barriers to long-distance and equipment
manufacturing competition, section 301(f) ensures that our vital
computer and high-technology markets remain open and competitive by
ensuring that Government technical standards are kept to a minimum.
Almost all standards in the communications and computer industries are
voluntary, private standards--not Government mandates--and they should
remain that way.
The principle of keeping Government out of technical standards is
taking on increasing importance as we observe the accelerating
convergence of the computer and communications industries. Companies
throughout America, and all over the world, are feverishly working on
the communications applications of tomorrow. These include the
smarthouse--a home where lighting, entertainment, security, and other
consumer needs are controlled and programmed automatically for users.
Computers and communications are at the very center of this automation
revolution. But like most revolutions, this one would wither and die if
the Government were to set the rules and stifle change.
Section 301(f) modifies the FCC's authority in order to reign in the
Commission's ongoing rulemaking on cable equipment compatibility. The
problem Congress faces is that the agency has taken our 1992 Cable
Act--the source of the Commission's power to assure compatibility
between televisions, VCR's, and cable systems--and gone far beyond what
appropriate public policy requires or its statutory authority permits.
The Commission's 1994 proposal for a decoder interface would make the
television set the gateway to the burgeoning
[[Page H1161]]
information superhighway, relegating the computer, and all other home
appliances, to second-tier status. It also would include one specific
home automation protocol--called CEBus, or Consumer Electronic Bus--as
the mechanism by which all cable-ready TV's and set-top boxes would
communicate.
My amendment prevents these consequences by precluding the Commission
from standardizing any features or protocols that are not necessary for
descrambling, preventing the selection of CEBus or any other home
automation protocol as a part of the FCC's cable compatibility
regulations, and precluding the Commission from affecting products in
the computer or home automation marketplaces in any way. Section 301(f)
leaves these standards to be set, as they should be, by competition in
the marketplace. It makes clear that the Commission does not have the
authority to prefer one home automation technology over another or
permit its cable compatibility rules to affect the unrelated computer
or home automation markets.
Some have questioned whether section 301(f) was intended to prevent
the Commission from achieving cable compatibility. To that I say
simply: No. The provision does not change the agency's power to ensure
that cable set-top boxes no longer interfere with the advanced features
of consumer TV's--like picture-in-picture. And as the conference report
makes clear, Congress intends that the FCC should now promptly complete
its long-delayed cable compatibility rulemaking. What the Commission
cannot do, however, is use the 1992 Cable Act as a justification or
excuse for broad Government standards on home automation communications
or audio-visual equipment.
Under section 301(f), the FCC is required to maximize marketplace
competition and private standards, not the role of Government
regulations. It is required to let the market resolve standards issues
for emerging technologies and services--like satellite broadcasting,
video-on-demand and home automation--and to keep its cable
compatibility standards narrowly tailored to solve only the specific
problems the 1992 act asked the FCC to handle. The decoder interface,
with its artificial bottleneck for the television and its unnecessary
impact on home automation, is far from the only approach to solving
those limited problems. The Commission must rework its compatibility
proposal. It should also seek input from the computer, home automation,
video dial tone and other potentially affected industries, not just the
cable television and consumer electronics industries.
Some have also questioned why the prohibition in section 301(f)--that
the Commission may not affect the computer or home automation markets--
is so broad. To that I answer that the language is broad in order to
effectively implement the principle that FCC regulations should not
interfere in competitive markets. Because there is no reason to affect
home automation or computers, and because even inadvertent or
relatively small effects on competitive markets can easily displace
technological innovation, section 301(f) is weighted toward protecting
competition and open markets. As the conference report states, any
``material influence'' on unrelated markets is prohibited. Because it
is impossible for agencies or courts to judge whether the impact of
technical standards in emerging markets would be harmful or
substantial, section 301(f) draws a bright line to avoid any regulatory
impact whatsoever.
There is an important policy at work here. The risk associated with
wide administrative powers over technology issues in an era of rapid
technical change is that premature or overbroad Government standards
may interfere in the market-driven process of standardization or impede
technological innovation itself. American industry has solved
compatibility problems, and created workable standards, in the VCR,
personal computer, compact disk, and other industries without any
Government involvement. Markets drive interoperability much better, and
far faster, than regulatory agencies could ever achieve. Where would we
be today if the FCC had stepped in to set compatibility standards for
personal computers in the early 1980's? We'd be without Windows '95, or
the Mac, or even DOS, because all of these operating systems arose as
the result of marketplace forces.
My amendment, which I am proud to report is included verbatim in the
final text of the Telecommunications Act of 1995, prevents us from
overregulating in the new computer and communications markets of the
1990's. We may yet be a few decades away from the totally automated
home of the ``Jetsons'' cartoon, but with the help of section 301(f)
we're one step closer to the smarthouse of tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, a number of Members, on both sides of the aisle, played
important roles in supporting my amendment at the Commerce Committee
level and during the conference committee negotiations. I very much
appreciate this bipartisan support, and thank my colleagues for
insisting that the final conference report include the full text of the
provision as originally introduced by me and as passed by the House
last August. I urge the House to pass the Telecommunications Act of
1995 and to apply its basic principles of open markets and competition
to the important area of compatibility standards.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Question: How many know whether or not there will be an unprecedented
increase in media concentration if this measure becomes law?
Answer: Not many.
But does it?
Well, the answer is that at a time that we need greater and more
diverse media voices, this measure before us will eliminate the
national radio and television ownership rules, scale back local
concentration rules, and allow corporations to simultaneously control
broadcast and cable systems.
Disheartening? I think so. Can it be improved? Of course. How do we
do it? Send it back to the committee.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley], a member of the committee.
(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference
report.
Years ago, seems like longer than it was, but in 1991 the gentleman
from Virginia [Mr. Boucher] and I introduced legislation to eliminate
the cable-telco cross-ownership language, to encourage competition
between cable and telephone and allow them into each other's
businesses, neither one of them particularly happy with that prospect
at the time, and now we have come to this day.
In looking back, when Al Swift and Tom Tauke introduced a bill to
eliminate the modified final judgment, we worked very hard on that
issue, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the chairman, and I want to express my
sincere appreciation to them for their hard work in the past and what
has brought us here today.
The same kind of thing for the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley],
the chairman, who has shown enormous leadership, and my good friend,
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], who unfortunately will be
retiring but has just put in hours and hours of work and leadership to
get us where we are today. I think all of us in this House owe Jack
Fields a great deal of gratitude for where we are today.
The heart of this bill is to eliminate monopolies and to encourage
this great competitive marketplace that we have going for us. Our
answer is, let the competition begin.
Today, we make history, the first major rewrite of telecommunications
legislation in this country in over 60 years. Driven by good public
policy and an explosion of new technology, we stand at the threshold of
the 21st century in communications with America as the undisputed
leader.
Mr. Speaker, in many ways it is a relief to be approaching the end of
this protracted process. This conference report has been a long time
coming--62 years, in fact--and while the bill falls a bit short of my
expectations, there can be no doubt that it represents landmark reform
of the Nation's telecommunications law.
This legislation is ambitious in its vision and breadth. It is a
vision of deregulation and head-to-head competition. It opens up all
communications markets to competition, including the local telephone
and cable television industries.
The measure's provisions allowing telephone companies and cable
companies to compete in each other's markets are based on legislation I
introduced in 1991 with the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher]. Our
measure envisioned the convergence of these technologies, and our
initiative constitutes the heart of this reform effort, if I may say
so myself.
The bill is antiregulatory and antibureaucratic in philosophy. Where
there are regulations or mandates, they exist in most cases for the
express purpose of promoting competition and ensuring the unencumbered
operation of market forces.
As is the case with politics, open business competition is not always
a pretty process. There will be dislocations and miscalculations.
[[Page H1162]]
Certainly, there are those who would prefer the old way of sheltered
monopolies and intense Government regulations. But in the end, the more
efficient markets, and innovations that protected incumbents would
never undertake.
As an aide, Mr. Speaker, there are some important issues which have
been left somewhat vague in the conference report, in order to allow
the FCC the latitude to implement them effectively. Some specifics have
been outlined, however. In the case of the joint marketing provisions,
for example, it is my understanding that the offering of local and long
distance service under the same brand name would be permissible, so
long as they are fully separate and those services are not jointly
advertised. In the case of local marketing agreements, I note that the
language allows LMA's to continue. It is important that broadcasters
are granted the flexibility that these innovative agreements make
possible. They help ensure the continuation of free, over-the-air local
broadcasting.
The truth, Mr. Speaker, is that the conference report could have been
even more deregulatory than it is. It is not the revolutionary measure
originally introduced in the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and
Finance. Unfortunately, the regulators and the protectionists left
their imprint on this bill, as well.
However, considering that we have a regulation-minded administration
at the White House and rather narrow Republican majorities in Congress,
it is an excellent step in the right direction. And in those areas
where we did not meet expectations, there will be future opportunities
to address shortcomings.
Mr. Speaker, enactment of this legislation will mean more choices,
lower prices, and better services for all telecommunications consumers.
It will mean more economic growth, more jobs, and a more competitive
U.S. economy. I urge the support of all Members.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink].
Mr. KLINK. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Markey], for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, when we were working on this bill back in the Committee
on Commerce, there were only a handful of us who voted against the bill
coming out of committee. I say a handful, 5 fingers, there were 5 of
us. When we came to the floor, again, we had many concerns with the
chairman's mark.
I will tell Members that during this process, even thought people on
both sides of the aisle, certainly the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Bliley], chairman, and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], chairman
of the subcommittee, tried to work very hard in a bipartisan manner to
include all of our concerns, I did not think we could get to the point
where we would have a bill that is acceptable.
I will tell Members that while the bill that we are taking up here,
this conference report, is certainly far from what this Member of
Congress would call ideal, I will support this bill. I think that we
have now seen how the process is supposed to work, how we are supposed
to have give-and-take, we are supposed to hear from industry groups who
have concerns.
The good Lord knows we all heard from industry groups and from
consumer groups. I would have to think that in my brief period here in
this Congress, this is the most lobbied piece of legislation certainly
that I have seen. I hope it is the most lobbied piece I will ever see.
I do not want anybody to try and break these records.
But with this bill we are going to create jobs. In my State of
Pennsylvania we are guessing, in talking to industry sources, that in a
10-year period we may create 140,000 much needed jobs, and other States
across this Nation will see similar things.
I would simply ask all of my colleagues to give due consideration to
supporting this conference report.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] who has brought a great energy and
intellectual impact to this legislative process.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the ranking member of the
Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I agree that this bill is substantially improved from
the one that originally came before us, although the notion of passing
a bill which has had added to it at a very unusual point in the
process, namely, in the conference, language that is explicitly and
admittedly unconstitutional because of its restriction on using the
word ``abortion'' is an interesting way to legislate, and that is one
reason that I do not like the bill.
But another, as I said before, is the extent to which it is so unfair
to the Republican leadership. It seemed to me that Speaker Gingrich and
his arguments against censorship was entitled to more consideration
that he got from his side of the aisle. I thought the Speaker was right
when he opposed censorship and I am sorry to see that he has given in.
But I am even more distressed at the end of my brief alliance with
the Senate majority leader. The Senate majority leader had been
strongly, in the last few days and few weeks, objecting to giving away
access to the TV spectrum, an asset that now belongs to the public and
is worth many billions of dollars--we are not sure how much--and he
said, ``Don't give it away. Let's auction it off.'' I thought he was
right and I was hoping we would get somewhere.
Because this bill essentially gives it away. I know we are being told
that we should all pretend that the bill does not really do that, just
as we should pretend that the bill does not really have some language
in there restricting your ability to talk about abortion on the
Internet. But the fact is that this legislation was drafted with the
intention of giving a substantial public asset to the broadcasters. I
believe it is in error.
I would hope we would defeat this today, send it back to conference,
let them simply put in auction language. Let us auction off this very
valuable aspect of the spectrum, have the billions of dollars for the
public. It will be billions less than we would have to take out of
Medicare or Medicaid or the environment.
I am afraid that we are setting the precedent here or confirming the
precedent here that free enterprise as the Republicans see it is for
the poor. Because today by giving away billions of dollars to the
networks, later by making similar presents to wealthy agricultural
interests, we will have confirmed that free enterprise and an absence
of subsidy are rules by which the poor and the working class should
live. But when it comes to substantial and important wealthy economic
interests, whether they control the sugar and peanut industry or
whether they are networks, they will be treated quite in contradiction
to the principles of free enterprise, quite without regard to free
market, but instead will be given these kind of subsidies.
{time} 1515
Giving away this very substantial asset that the unused portions of
the spectrum represents for no money and after they use it for a while,
maybe they will think about giving it back, I doubt very much that they
are going to want to do it, is a very grave error.
Auctions of the unused parts of the spectrum have proved very
successful, and it is a grave error not to include them here.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer].
Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and my
congratulations to him, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], and
certainly to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields], for putting
together this very difficult piece of legislation.
When the AT&T system was broken over a decade ago, everybody assumed
that local telephone service was a natural monopoly. Today, thanks to
rapid technological and market changes, that is no longer the case.
As States around the country are proving, competition is much better
than regulation of telephone markets by our Government bureaucrats.
Just as we are replacing regulations for telephone companies, so are
we with cable companies. Based on provisions that I authored in the
House-passed legislation, this conference report ends Federal
regulation of the entertainment tier of cable. Competition from the
telephone companies and many new entrants will replace one of the most
needless sets of regulation of the entertainment tier of cable
television leaving regulation in place for the so-called life line tier
of cable. Competition from the telephone companies and many new
entrants will replace one of the most needless sets of regulation this
Congress had ever passed.
[[Page H1163]]
With enactment of this legislation, we finally get the Government out
of the job of regulating MTV and the cartoon channel. We have finally
moved out of the dark ages to provide competition rather than
regulation to the benefit of the consumers of this country.
I urge my colleagues to support the conference report.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln].
(Mrs. LINCOLN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I think we all today owe a special thanks
to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] and to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Fields], to my good friends, the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Dingell] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], for
all of their hard work and efforts on behalf of all of us here in
America for this wonderful piece of legislation.
I would like to ask the people of America to pay attention, folks,
because in the midst of all of our frustration over budget battles and
partisan politics, a new day has dawned with this legislation.
Today's vote on this historic legislation lays out the welcome mat
for the 21st century and for those of us in rural America, it ensures
we have a place at the table.
As a representative of 25 rural counties in Arkansas, my primary
concerns during these negotiations and among the conferees has been
ensuring that people who live in rural areas will have access to the
same advanced technology and competition that we are seeking for the
country and at affordable prices. Today, I am extremely pleased with
the results of endless hours of talks.
By extending the definition of universal service, we have provided
the means to ensure the coordinated Federal-State universal service
system provides consumers living in rural and high-cost areas with
access to advanced telecommunication services at reasonably comparable
rates. By adding guarantees to the requirements for receiving universal
service money, we have also made sure rural consumers will be served.
The waives and modifications created in both the Senate and House
bills were carefully blended in conference to balance desires to
promote competition in local exchange areas while ensuring smaller
providers have necessary flexibility to comply with the bill's
interconnection requirement.
I appreciate the chairman's willingness to work with me on these and
many other issues.
I also would like to recognize the House's wisdom in accepting the
Snowe-Rockefeller provision in the Senate bill to supplement distance
learning and telemedicine. We included similar language in our bill
last year. I am pleased my colleagues in the House took the time to
educate themselves about the infrastructure we need to educate our
children.
This is a bill we can all be proud of. I certainly encourage all of
my colleagues to support it.
My primary concern during negotiations among conferees has been
ensuring that people who live in rural areas will have access to the
same advanced technology and competition that we're seeking for the
country--and at affordable prices.
Today, I am extremely pleased with the results of endless hours of
talks. By expanding the definition of universal service, we have
provided the means to ensure that the coordinated Federal-State
universal service system provides consumers living in rural and high-
cost areas with access to advanced telecommunications services at
reasonably comparable rates. By adding guarantees to the requirements
for receiving universal service money, we also have made sure that
rural consumers will be served.
The waivers and modifications created in both the Senate and House
bills were carefully blended in conference to balance the desire to
promote competition in the local exchange area while ensuring that
smaller providers have the necessary flexibility to comply with the
bills' interconnection requirements. I appreciate the chairman's
willingness to work with me on these issues.
I also would like to recognize the House's wisdom in accepting the
Snowe-Rockefeller provision in the Senate bill to supplement distance
learning and telemedicine. We included similar language in H.R. 3636
last year, and I'm pleased that my colleagues in the House took the
time to educate themselves about the infrastructure we need to educate
our children. We have crafted a bill that will enable doctors in Little
Rock to read x rays from the Ozarks while students in Piggott will be
able to use the Library of Congress in Washington for their term
papers.
On a lighter side, this bill will give consumers more entertainment
choices. It's been a long road toward creating the parameters for the
information superhighway, and I congratulate Chairmen Dingell, Markey,
Fields, and Bliley for their leadership. Special thanks also are due
staffers David Leach, Andy Levin, Harold Furchtgott-Roth, Cathy Reid,
Mike Regan, and Michael O'Rielly.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the industries involved in this bill,
oh, have we heard from the industries. We have heard from the lobbyists
that the industries have hired, oh, have we heard from the lobbyists.
We have heard from the consultants that the lobbyists have hired. We
have heard from the law firms, we have heard from all of them. Someone
said, ``We never want to hear from them again.'' Well, you will not for
about 50 years, because that is how long it will take for us to get
around to another communications act.
Why did you hear from them? What did you hear from the consumers? Oh,
them? Well, what did you hear from the citizens? Oh, yes, right, John.
Well, here is what they said, this is a $70 billion giveaway to
broadcasters in this bill. I like broadcasters, folks. But the bill
contains a provision which gives current broadcasters a block of
publicly owned radio spectrum to increase their revenues by providing
several free and pay-per-view channels, paging transmission and other
nonprogram services without giving the public anything in return. Now,
that from the Consumers Federation of America. Did they come and visit
you? Have you received any visits from their lobbyists? I do not think
so.
So what we are doing, ladies and gentlemen, in broad daylight, and I
know we are sober, we are giving corporate welfare to a broadcast
industry which is already among the most powerful. This gift is
especially outrageous at a time when we propose massive budget cuts for
scores of important social programs.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Stearns].
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, before I start, I would just like to
commend the chairman of the committee for the great work he has done
and also to the distinguished subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Fields], who is retiring.
I would like to echo a comment one of my colleagues said, this is a
great opportunity for bipartisanship, and I hope the American people
are watching and the people in the audience, and, of course, the people
here on the floor. This is a bipartisan opportunity.
I would like to put into the Record two colloquies with the
distinguished subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Fields], and this deals with the duopoly rulemaking. I would like to
engage the gentleman in a colloquy.
Has he read the duopoly rulemaking that I gave him that I can make
part of the Record here today?
Mr. FIELDS of Texas. If the gentleman will yield, I have read the
clarification of local television station ownership provisions. The
gentleman is correct in the statements that are made.
Mr. STEARNS. Since the rule was last revised, the local media
marketplace has undergone a breathtaking transformation. So I think
this is important. Also, has the gentleman, the subcommittee chairman,
had the opportunity to read the statement concerning the must-carry
provision? It is my understanding there is language within S. 652 which
requires all must-carry challenges submitted to the FCC to be resolved
within 120 days. Is that correct?
Mr. FIELDS of Texas. If the gentleman will yield further, that is
correct, and I have examined the remainder of your colloquy.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I am making part of the Record three
documents.
[[Page H1164]]
The documents referred to follow:
Mr. STEARNS. Further I would like to state that broadcast stations
are important sources of local news, public affairs programming, and
other local broadcast services. This category of service should be an
important part of the public interest determination to be made by the
Commission when deciding whether a broadcast renewal application shall
be granted by the Commission. To prevent local television broadcast
signals from being subject to noncarriage or repositioning by cable
television systems and those providing cable services, we must
recognize and reaffirm the importance of mandatory carriage of local
commercial television stations, as implemented by Commission rules and
regulations.
The following is the understanding and agreement referred to in the
colloquy between Representative Fields and Representative Stearns:
The conference report directs the FCC to conduct a
rulemaking proceeding to determine whether to retain, modify
or eliminate its duopoly rule, which prevents ownership of
more than one television station in a market. Since the rule
was last revised, the local media marketplace has undergone a
breathtaking transformation. This has been characterized not
only by a large increase in the number of broadcast stations
(up one-third in the last decade alone), but more
significantly by an onslaught of new multichannel rivals to
traditional broadcasters, such as cable and satellite
systems, and soon, video dialtone networks.
It is agreed that, when it considers revision of the
duopoly rule pursuant to this conference report, the FCC
should give serious weight to the impact of these changes in
the local television marketplace--changes which have left
broadcasters as single-channel outlets in a multi-channel
marketplace.
It is also our intent that the FCC should revise the rule
as is necessary to ensure that broadcasters are able to
compete fairly with other media providers while ensuring that
the public receives information from a diversity of media
voices.
It is also agreed that the FCC should consider granting
waivers for combinations in which at least one station is a
UHF and where the FCC determines that joint ownership,
operation, or control will not harm competition or the
preservation of a diversity of voices in the local television
market.
As our numerous hearings demonstrated, today's local
television marketplace exemplifies the massive changes in the
competitive landscape that we've witnessed in many sectors of
communications. Viewers are no longer limited to a few TV
channels. Rather, consumers have--or soon will have--access
to dozens of cable channels, wireless cable, satellite and
video dialtone systems.
Broadcasters compete with these multi-channel rivals for
viewers and ad dollars alike. In particular, interconnected
and clustered cable systems are now capable of offering
advertisers local spots throughout an entire local media
market, thus directly impacting the local broadcasting
market. Indeed, cable's share of local advertising revenues
increased by 80% between 1990 and 1993, and this rate of
increase is projected to continue for the foreseeable future.
If we want free, over-the-air programming to survive and
thrive, we need to give broadcasters the flexibility they
need to compete effectively with their new multi-channel
rivals. To this end, the conference report grandfathers Local
Marketing Agreements, the innovative joint ventures that many
broadcasters have been using to meet the new competition.
The need to relax the duopoly rule is illustrated by the
broadcast community's experience with LMAs. These joint
ventures enable broadcasters to take advantage of the
economies of scale and generate synergies that provide more
outlets for free and innovative local and other programming.
LMAs have enabled new stations to get on the air and
struggling stations to stay on the air.
Beyond grandfathering LMAs, this legislation charges the
FCC to take a hard look at the duopoly rule, and Congress
could not be more clear; the FCC is directed to determine
whether to retain, modify, or even eliminate its limitations
on television station ownership in a local market.
It is my position that the FCC should waive or eliminate
the duopoly rule in circumstances cases where a proposed
combination involves at least one UHF station and there is no
demonstration of harm to completion or diversity of voices in
the market. Congress needs to closely monitor the FCC to
ensure that it revises the duoploy rule in recognition of the
changes in the local television marketplace and of the need
to give local broadcasters some flexibility to respond and
succeed in the challenging multi-channel marketplace.
The 1934 Communications Act--accompanied as it is by a
hodgepodge of FCC decisions and court rulings--is outdated.
As we craft the communications policy that is going to carry
us into the 21st Century, we must ensure that it reflects the
flexibility of an ever-changing marketplace.
We are standing at the precipice of a bold new era of communications,
an era whose full impact we can only speculate about. But we can say
this: That era holds great promise for America, economically and even
politically. It will be an era in which America's already significant
lead in communications technology continues to expand. It will be an
era in which Americans will have greater access to information and
education than ever before. And it will be an era in which democracy
itself will be enhanced as Americans gain powerful new ways to
communicating directly with their elected representatives.
For these reasons, this telecommunications bill represents one of the
most important pieces of legislation Washington will consider this
year. Unlike many bills before Congress, which concern the routine
functions of government, the telecommunications reform legislation will
help transform the very fabric of American society.
This is no small task and is fraught with controversy, but there is a
common thread that holds all the elements of this massive bill
together: deregulation. The fact is, government intrusion in America's
communications industry has held us back, stifling innovation,
competition, and the ability of America to maintain its global lead in
key technologies. While this legislation did much in the way of
loosening the regulatory chokeholds in the areas of long distance and
local phone service, and cable, more could have been done in the area
of broadcasting.
Broadcasting occupies a unique and critical position in the world of
telecommunications. Broadcasters fulfill a number of important roles in
their communities--reporting school closings, covering local news, and
providing emergency information. In addition, broadcasting is unlike
other communications technologies. Broadcasting is not only the only
technology available to 100 percent of American households, the content
it provides is free. The only cost is for a receiver.
Not surprisingly, broadcasting remains the principal means Americans
use to get the information and entertainment that make up an important
part of their lives. In fact, broadcasting has the widest coverage of
any media today. More households have television and radios--99
percent--than have telephones--94 percent--or cable service--61
percent. Broadcasting to this day is the one medium that reaches the
whole country. It is precisely for this reason that we must ensure that
broadcasting remains a vital component in the information age. We must
provide broadcasters with the flexibility to compete effectively not
only with each other but also with their competitors.
In 1964, the FCC last revisited the duopoly rule which prohibits an
entity for owning two television stations in a local market. In 1964,
there were very few VHF stations and the FCC felt this rule was
necessary to ensure diversity. Well, the video landscape has changed
dramatically since the implementation of the 1964 duopoly rule.
Americans have access to many over-the-air broadcast channels. In the
last decade alone, the number of commercial broadcast stations has
increased by nearly one-third. This increase in free over-the-air
viewing options, coupled with the availability of a multitude of video
outlets--cable, wireless cable, DBS and the imminent entry of telephone
companies offering video dialtone--evidences the fact that the duopoly
rule has outlived its usefulness.
Serving local needs in an expensive endeavor. Relaxing the duopoly
rule would allow station owners to achieve economies of scale by
sharing equipment, accounting, and other common station costs. Saving
on broadcasting costs would enable broadcasters to compete with
themselves as well as other nonbroadcasting competitors. Keeping the
duopoly rule freezes broadcasters as single channel providers who must
compete with other multichannel providers.
Broadcasters have long found cable to be a formidable rival for
viewers, but now local broadcasters are losing market share for local
advertising revenues, too. For years, because of fragmentation of
ownership in local markets, cables' share of local ad revenues has
lagged behind its rapidly increasing penetration and viewership. But
increasingly, cable operators are creating marketwide interconnects
capable of offering local spots on all the cable systems in a market.
Moreover, in order to compete with phone companies, cable operators are
clustering at a rapid pace so that they dominate an entire local
market. Driven by these interconnects and clustering, cable's share of
local advertising revenues increase 80 percent from 1990 to 1993.
Because of the increased competition from fellow stations and other
video providers, many broadcaster stations are marginal operations,
particularly in the smaller markets, where, according to the FCC,
stations lost on average $880,000 in 1991. Adding a further financial
complication, the conversion to digital broadcasting will be stressful
for these smaller market stations.
In this increasingly competitive communications market, it is not
fair if one competitor remains leashed to outdated regulations. This is
what will happen if we do not relax the duopoly rule, while we
unshackle many of the broadcasters' competitors.
[[Page H1165]]
To respond to the challenges of today's media and advertising
marketplace under the existing regulatory scheme, many television
broadcasters have emulated their colleagues in radio and entered into
innovative arrangements called local marketing agreements, or LMA's. An
LMA is a type of joint venture that generally involves the sale of a
licensee of chunks of air time on its station to another station, in
the same or adjacent market, which then supplies the programming to
fill that time and sell the advertising to support it.
Such agreements enable separately owned stations to function
cooperatively, achieving significant economies of scale via combined
sales and advertising efforts, shared technical facilities and
increasing stations access to diverse programming. I'm pleased this
legislation recognizes the benefits of LMA's and grandfathers them. By
grandfathering LMA's, we are allowing broadcasters to continue to use a
tool that has helped them meet the challenges of today and tomorrow.
My own State, Florida has 5 LMA's which have generated positive
synergies. Channel 26 in Naples could not afford a real news department
until it entered into an LMA with channel 20 in Ft. Meyers. Now it has
an outstanding news operation. This particular joint venture shows how
LMA's can increase the amount of local news programming. There are many
other examples of LMA's across the country that evidence the benefits
of such arrangements.
While I am disappointed the conference did not accept the House
provisions which relax the duopoly rule, I am confident that the FCC
will, in its duopoly rulemaking, conclude that as this body did, that a
1964 rule is no longer applicable to today and more important,
tomorrow's video marketplace. We must not continue to deny local
broadcasters the flexibility they need to meet the challenges of an
ever increasingly competitive market. Broadcasters must have more
relief if they are to play a meaningful role in the information age.
While grandfathering LMA's is a start, it certainly is not enough. The
best solution to ensure the continued viability of free, over-the-air
broadcasting is to relax the duopoly rule.
I am also disappointed with the radio provisions which are a
disservice to those in the radio industry. While the House and Senate
bills completely deregulated the radio industry, the conference took a
giant step away from deregulation and forces the radio industry to
attempt to compete with others with a 50 pound weight of needless
regulation around its neck. I prefer the original House position which
would have enabled all in the radio industry to prosper.
While the Telecommunications Act improves upon the Pole Attachment
Act of 1978, our legislation fails to completely redress this issue. We
have worked together to forge a compromise, but certainly we could have
gone further, allowing the free market to work.
Again, while I am deeply disappointed with some provisions in this
bill, I will support it because of the effect it will have on our
economy. Overall, Congress cannot afford to let this opportunity slip
through its fingers one more time. We must seize this opportunity and
pass this ground breaking legislation now.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
(Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I did not have the privilege of
participating in this year's debate, because I took a leave of absence
from this committee. But truly I participated in the last, I do not
know, 10 to 15 years that we tried to do a bill, and for this reason I
think enormous credit must go to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Bliley] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] and I think
especially the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], who have over the
years produced a bill that brings back open competition, deregulation.
This is a historic bill, probably the most important bill that will do
something for people, bring technology into people's homes, opens up
telephone service, cable.
This is something that I think, as the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Conyers] has pointed out, perhaps is not perfect, but it is something
that once again, when the history is written of this Congress, I think
this bill is going to be considered landmark legislation, and again,
while I did not participate this year, I remember the hundreds and
thousands of hours of markups when something did not work, and again, I
want to commend the chairmen, but especially those on my side of the
aisle, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] and the gentleman
from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] for truly historic efforts in voting a
historic bill.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this historic
telecommunications reform legislation which is the product of a
bipartisan effort over many years. In particular, I would like to
commend Chairman Bliley, Subcommittee Chairman Fields, Ranking Member
Dingell, and Mr. Markey of Massachusetts for their spirit of
cooperation and commitment to passing quality legislation.
This legislation, which will serve as the foundation for America's
communications future, meets the necessary balance of private and
public cooperation in setting the rules for competition in all
communications markets and protecting consumers.
This telecommunications reform legislation will play a major role in
bringing the benefits of the technological revolution closer to all
Americans.
Although, Congress can ensure universal access, it cannot guarantee
success. I challenge all Americans to take advantage of historic, new
technology to boost its economic fortunes.
The nature of the telecommunications industry is inherently
susceptible to large degrees of commercial concentration. I am
confident this bill combines private sector mechanisms necessary to
ensure all residents the highest quality of services while maintaining
Government safeguards to ensure open competition and policies that
empower children with information technology by creating incentives for
public entities like schools, libraries, hospitals and community
centers.
This bill embraces sensible deregulation and market-driven
competition. It is a welcome dose of bipartisan compromise that will
yield unlimited benefits in the form of job creation and the
disbursement of the information age.
Deregulation is necessary where appropriate and prudent. However,
Government oversight is necessary to ensure the public good such as
providing universal service to poor, rural and minority customers.
This legislation ensures that all providers contribute their fair
share to supporting universal telephone service in residential and
rural areas. It preserves the principle that everyone should have
access to telephone service, regardless of their ability to pay the
cost to provide that service.
As Americans have done so many times in our history, we enter the
information age in the belief of open markets and free competition. As
we stand amidst the apprehension of the unknown and the excitement of
discovery, we accept the challenges of the future and the
responsibility of inevitable obstacles.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Berman], who has done extremely important work on
the antitrust provision in this bill.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Berman].
(Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, the conference report appropriately includes
a strong, independent role for the Justice Department in evaluating
applications by RBOC's to provide long distance service.
The FCC must consult with the Attorney General in determining whether
RBOC entry is in the public interest, a requirement designed to ensure
that the FCC gives proper regard to the Justice Department's special
expertise in competition matters and in making judgments regarding the
likely marketplace effects of RBOC entry into the competitive long
distance markets.
In fact, acknowledging the importance of the antitrust concerns
raised by such entry and to check any possible abuses of RBOC market
power, the bill specifically provides that the FCC accord substantial
weight to the DOJ's views on these issues.
I am pleased that we have secured the Justice Department's role as
the country's antitrust expert by ensuring that its position is given
serious substantive consideration on the merits by the FCC as well as
in any ensuing judicial proceedings.
However, I am gravely concerned that provisions in title V of the
conference report, in particular, sections 502 and 507, are
unconstitutional.
In section 507, by extending to the internet clearly unconstitutional
underlying law, we are enacting an unconstitutional abortion gag rule.
As a member of the conference committee, I would like to review the
procedural history of the adoption of the online indecency prohibition
in section 502.
The House conferees first voted to approve a substitute amendment
offered by Representative Rick White which contained a Miller-adapted
``harmful to minors'' standard, rather
[[Page H1166]]
than an indecency standard as the basis of liability under Section
223(d) of Title 47. The harmful to minors standard would have
criminalized exposing children to online pornography such as Playboy or
Penthouse without chilling entirely nonpornographic, but offensive,
expression. However, the House conferees then approved by a 17-to-16
vote an oral amendment offered by Representative Goodlatte to replace
the ``harmful to minors'' standard in the White substitute with a then-
unspecified indecency standard.
After that vote, Representative White put forward a proposal to
supporters of the Goodlatte amendment to define the indecency standard
to include the third prong of the Miller-Ginsberg ``harmful to minors''
test. The proposal was to include statutory language clarifying that
the indecency standard included only material that ``taken as whole,
lack[s] serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for
minors.'' I and others supported this proposal in an effort to avoid
criminalizing display of valuable material that might nevertheless be
considered ``patently offensive'' according to the standards of some
local communities. However, the proposal was rejected by leading
supporters of the Goodlatte amendment. They instead reduced the
Goodlatte amendment to writing by incorporating the FCC broadcast
definition of indecency into the House offer to the Senate. That
indecency formulation was accepted by the Senate conferees, and will
now become part of this legislation.
No hearings were held by any committee of jurisdiction with regard to
the constitutionality of the indecency standard adopted by the
Conference Committee or the least restrictive means by which to
implement such a standard.
I regret that there were no hearings on this issue because I believe
that we have overlooked serious constitutional problems with applying
the indecency standard to the online medium. The least restrictive
means test to which the courts subject indecency restrictions requires
us to consider carefully how the restriction applies to the medium in
question and whether less intrusive alternatives would achieve the
governmental interest in protecting children. Having failed to engage
in this inquiry and analysis, we have a conference report which assumes
that the broadcast indecency standard can simply be applied wholesale
to displays of online content.
While I believe that we have made progress in some respects through
the adoption of the conference compromise on Internet content, I fear
that our failure carefully to consider the least restrictive
alternative test may result in the invalidation of section 223(d), a
concern expressed to me in a letter from the Department of Justice.
This letter was sent to all the conferees and explained that the
indecency prohibition adopted by the conference was constitutionally
suspect, and stood a greater risk of being found unconstitutional than
the harmful to minors standard that was supported by 16 House
conferees. In a hurried effort to appear tough on pornography we may
well have approved an unenforceable legal standard.
{time} 1530
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Frisa].
Mr. FRISA. Mr. Speaker, the Congress will soon pass the first
overhaul of America's communications laws since 1934, when Americans
gathered around the family radio for their news and entertainment.
Today, as a result of this exciting new law, the very latest in
technology will now be available and affordable to every American
everywhere. So this legislation, which will breed competition and
innovation and lower costs to all Americans, is good for the American
people, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Deutsch].
(Mr. DEUTSCH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the conferees. This
legislation is as significant as it has been controversial and complex,
and it has required a tremendous effort on the part of the conferees to
get us to the point where the conference report can be voted on today.
This legislation will be a major boom to our economy and our
constituents. My constituents, like others around the country, will be
the beneficiaries of greater communications choices, lower costs,
increased jobs, and economic well-being. The bill represents a
substantial step in the right direction, and I believe it will strike a
good balance between deregulation and consumer protection.
As for the issues that have not been completely nailed down, such as
foreign ownership rules and questions of interpretation and
implementation, I look forward to working with my colleagues on the
Committee on Commerce to ensure that the vision and balance intended in
this bill is maintained.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Watt], who has served with unusual distinction in
his career on the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I think my colleagues know me well enough to know that I
seldom come to the floor to debate a bill when I do not know how I am
going to vote on that bill.
This is a bill which has some real advantages to it. I think we do
need to increase the level of competition in the telecommunications
industry, and this bill heads us in that direction. But there are also
some very troubling things about this bill, and I am really having a
hard time balancing those troubling aspects against the benefits of the
bill.
Would it be irresponsible of me to vote to give away the capital of
the United States of America? That is in essence one of the things this
bill does. The 70 billion dollars' worth of assets that the United
States Government now owns is being given away to the richest people
and industry in America under this bill. That is the spectrum value, I
am told.
So I am troubled, deeply troubled, by the notion that we could at the
same time that we are taking $70, $100, $200 billion away from the
poorest people in this country, be turning around, on the other hand,
and giving away $70 billion of our assets. I am troubled by that. I
hope I can get some guidance before the vote.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the
gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. Speaker, there is no giveaway in this bill. What we do is loan
the spectrum to the broadcasters because they have to simulcast while
they advance this new technology. That is, the current TV sets will not
receive the digital signal, so they have to broadcast both digitally
and analog.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I do not have the time, and, if the
gentleman will be patient, I think he will understand where I am coming
from by the time I am finished.
So they have to do this simultaneously. What we say is once this
conversion comes, we reclaim the analog spectrum and we auction it off
at that time. Nobody can tell you if the American people for sure will
adopt this new technology, and nobody can tell you when they will do
it; $70 billion is pulled out of the ether somewhere. There are no
statistics to back it up.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Paxon].
Mr. PAXON. Mr. Speaker, this is truly an historic day for this body.
It marks the beginning of a new era for America businesses and
consumers that will result in the creation of millions of new jobs in
the years ahead because of this legislation.
Full and open competition will create new products and innovative
services at the best prices for consumers. I think, most importantly,
this bill recognizes one of our guiding principles, that competition is
better than regulation.
Mr. Speaker, I want to give special thanks and appreciation to the
chairs, the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Fields] and the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Bliley] for their leadership in bringing this bill to the
floor today. This is one of the most important days in this Congress.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Lofgren].
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I think that one of the most important
things in this telecommunications reform bill
[[Page H1167]]
is the provision that I advocated when the bill was before the House
some months ago, and that is affordable access to the Internet for
schools. I would like to thank all of those Members of both sides of
the aisle who fought for this and who kept with it in the conference,
because this is one of the items in which no high-priced lobbyists were
involved. No one was interested but the parents and the teachers of
this country. It will make a tremendous difference, especially for
children who come from less affluent families. Recently my hometown
newspaper did an analysis of Internet access and test scores and found
that for children in low-income neighborhoods whose families do not
have a lot of money, their test scores rose dramatically just with
their introduction to the Internet. So I think this is a stellar day
for schoolchildren.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to say that I was very angry when I
heard that some people would jeopardize this very important bill by
putting in extraneous measures having to do with abortion. I would like
to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], and the gentlewoman
from New York, [Mrs. Lowey], who disagree on the underlying issue, for
clarifying that these provisions are unconstitutional and now the
legislative history is such that they are not valid.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
North Carolina [Mr. Watt], before the dean's explanation has taken
hold.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I am just trying to get some
further clarification here, because the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Bliley], has indicated that they are not giving this spectrum away. Am
I clear that in the process of loaning this spectrum, when you get back
what you are going to get back from them ultimately, they are giving
you the old capacity back, not the new capacity?
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. BLILEY. That depends. If they use the new capacity, yes, we will
get the old back. If they do not use the new capacity, we will get the
new back.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if they
use the new capacity, would that not be the equivalent of giving you
back what would be the virtual equivalent of black and white television
as opposed to much more advanced capabilities, the equivalent of color
television?
I know it is beyond that, but I am simplifying it. We are not talking
black and white versus color, but capacitywise, is it not substantially
more?
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, the spectrum, we do not know what they will be used for
when it is auctioned off. It could be used for many things. But it will
bring a far better price than if you do it speculatively now, because
the broadcasters will have to spend some $10 billion for new equipment
in order to broadcast a digital signal while they do the simulcast.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLILEY. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, is it not true that the old
spectrum is inordinately less valuable than the new digital spectrum?
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, it may or may not be. We
will have to see.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very regrettable red herring. We have now a
system of analog broadcasting for television. It is possible to develop
a system of digital broadcasting in which we get a superior signal,
both as to sound and as to picture. We are trying to move ourselves
from this analog system to the superior digital system and to achieve
the benefits which will flow from that kind of use.
To do so, we have seen that the Federal Communications Commission has
made available a block of spectrum which will be made available to each
of the broadcasters so that they can use it for going from analog to
the new digital system, and they will continue to use the analog system
which they now have during the time that the changeover takes place.
There are literally hundreds of millions of television sets in this
country that have to be changed from the analog to digital. At the
conclusion of the entire process, one of these existing sets of signals
will be returned to the Federal Government. They will be unimpaired
because the spectrum is a system of availability of receiving signals.
Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DINGELL. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, to my good friend very quickly, it
is the anticipation that the V-band is going to be cleared. The U-band
will be packed, which will add value to the return of that analog
spectrum. It is arguable that this will be more valuable spectrum.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the spectrum will come
back to the Government at the conclusion, either the digital or the
analog, and the citizens will during that time have a chance to change
over to the new kind of television sets. The broadcasters will be able
to convert to the new kind of broadcasting system.
The country will achieve the enormous benefit of this set of events,
and the public will receive the opportunity to make the changeover in
an orderly fashion in a way which benefits everybody. The taxpayers
will gain. There is no giveaway of anything.
At the conclusion of this time, the broadcasters will have the same
amount of spectrum they have now and an orderly changeover to a
superior system of broadcasting will have taken place during this
period.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. The
one thing that surprises me is that the Republican Party has
apparently, with regard to this question of how to use the new
spectrum, so little confidence in the free market. We hear about the
free market from time to time, but because a very valuable industry,
the broadcasting industry, wants to get the first use of it for
nothing, and that is what we are talking about, this valuable part of
the spectrum, yes, the broadcasting industry will be allowed, for free,
to do the experimentation, and then maybe at the end they will give
back the other part of it.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from North Carolina was right.
{time} 1545
Whatever happened to the free market? Is not the best way to decide
how to use this new spectrum that will become available, whether it is
for digital TV or for some other purpose, to let us auction it off?
Mr. Speaker, earlier it was said all elements of industry liked this
bill. I have no particular beef with the industry, but I would suggest
that when all elements of industry like the bill, probably the
taxpayers and the consumers have reasons to worry.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, why do we have to give the broadcasters spectrum not
being used for free, over-the-air TV? It is a gift, no matter how it is
described. It is a huge, charitable, wealthy, corporate gift.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from North Carolina
[Mr. Watt].
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, now that I have heard all
the explanations, I would say that this is like giving away the dirt
road and the interstate highway, and, once this is all over, we are
going to be given back the dirt road to auction off the somebody else.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin].
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, let me see if I can help set the record
straight. Our bill does not give away spectrum to the broadcasters to
do anything with other than to broadcast over the air in this
transition from one technology to the other. And then it requires the
return of the old technology spectrum to the people of the United
States.
Second, the bill provides that, if the broadcasters should use any of
that spectrum for any purpose other than
[[Page H1168]]
over-the-air broadcasting, they have to pay for it like everybody else.
That is what the bill currently says.
One final point: The issue of a broadcast spectrum is tied up with
something called the public interest standard. It has to do with the
trade we made a long time ago to licensed broadcasters who operate
under a public interest standard, a relicensing by the FCC, and a
review of that licensing over time.
If my colleagues want to change that policy, and some do, they ought
not make it in a budget meeting; they ought to make it in the committee
of jurisdiction where we examine what happens on television and what
broadcasters do with the license they get to operate in the public
interest standard. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill and let us
debate that issue in the committee of jurisdiction where it belongs.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Towns].
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Bliley], chairman, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Dingell], ranking member, and of course the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Fields], the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], the ranking member of the subcommittee.
I am pleased that this conference report contains a new initiative to
assist in the development of capital funds for small businesses. This
telecommunications development fund will provide low-interest loans to
small businesses with $50 million or less through up-front spectrum
auction payments. I would like to thank the leadership of the committee
for bringing this momentous legislation forward and for supporting my
efforts to assist small businesses.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the argument we hear against
auctioning off the spectrum to the broadcasters, as we have just heard
from my friend from Louisiana, after all, they operate with public
interest obligations. I have been here with him 15 years, and that is
the nicest I have ever heard him talk about public interest
obligations.
The broadcasters successfully work to reduce those public interest
obligations to mean virtually nothing. The only time they raise them is
when they can use them as an excuse to get the superhighway, as the
gentleman from North Carolina said, for free. I do not think that my
friend from Louisiana believes that that public interest standard will
ever be amounting to much. It is simply a flag they wave so they can
get this for free.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayworth). The gentleman from Virginia
[Mr. Bliley] has 6 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] has 6 minutes remaining.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte].
(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this very,
very important bill that is going to provide deregulation in an
industry that is badly needed. We are going to finally bring the
telecommunication policy of this country into the last half of the 20th
century before we enter the 21st century.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is going to create millions of jobs, estimated
over 3 million jobs due to the new competition and the new technologies
that are going to be made available.
I would also like to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde],
the chairman, and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the
chairman of the conference, for making it possible for me to play a key
role in working out an agreement that protects the rights of local
governments to see that their zoning regulations are carried forward in
making sure that, when new cell towers are located, they have the
ability to determine in each locality where they are placed while
fairly making sure that those locations do not interfere with
interstate commerce and with the opportunity to advance this new
technology.
I strongly support this legislation and urge my colleagues to vote
for the conference report.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington [Mr. White], a member of the committee.
(Mr. WHITE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Bliley] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] for giving me the
opportunity to be part of this bill.
This is a good bill. It is an important bill. I would like to point
out what sometimes gets lost when we talk about all the details. The
main accomplishment of this bill is that it takes us from our current
situation of regulated monopolies in many, many industries and takes us
to an era of competition. That is the huge accomplishment of this bill.
It is a very important accomplishment, and I think it is something we
can all be proud of.
There are several other issues this bill deals with. Like many good
bills, this is not a perfect bill. I think we have a ways to go making
sure that the Internet is protected under this bill. I think we ended
up with the wrong standard for indecency. I think we have to make sure
that the FCC does not have a role in regulating the Internet. I think
that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Fields] and I have colloquy that we
are going to submit for the Record on that issue. But on balance I
think this is important, and I ask the gentleman from Texas if he has
seen the colloquy and agrees with it.
Mr. FIELDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I have
reviewed that. He is accurate and I am supportive.
Mr. WHITE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate that. I
thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] and the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Fields] for letting me be part of this bill. It is a great
bill, and I hope we adopt it.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, in reviewing section 602 of the bill as modified by the
conference agreement, which deals with the preemption of local taxation
for direct-to-home services, I wonder whether this provision should
also include any present or future wireless service providers who
transmit video programs to subscribers without using traditional wire-
based distribution equipment as the new local multipoint distribution
services, or LMDS.
I yield to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, it sounds like essentially the same factual
situation to me. I assure the gentleman that we would be willing to
hold hearings in the Committee on the Judiciary on that subject later
this Congress.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is a historic day. The legislation which we are
considering has been constructed over a 4-year period. Much
deliberation has been given to this legislation. Many issues so complex
that they could not be resolved in brief periods of time had to be
deliberated after much expert opinion over month-long periods.
The product that we have out here on the floor is not perfect, but it
is the blueprint for the information superhighway of the 21st century.
Its most important component is that it uses competition as its core,
as its soul.
Everything in this bill is not perfect. The bill, in fact, guarantees
that no company in any industry will any longer be able to rest
comfortably knowing that they have a monopoly and that
telecommunications or computer or long distance or software or whatever
high technology industry that they seek to make their fortunes in.
In addition, we ensure diversity. We ensure that consumers are going
to have choices. There will be two wires at a minimum to almost every
single home in the country, each wire able to perform every single one
of the services. If you throw in the electric companies, which also
have the capacity to do so, we are going to have a revolution which the
smallest companies, the
[[Page H1169]]
smallest software companies, that thousands and thousands of software
companies and computer companies which represent the real job creators
over the next generation will, then they can one way or the other get
their product into the homes, into the businesses of every single
person in this country.
This is a revolution. It breaks down all the old models of one cable
company, of one television company. It breaks new ground in a way that
should make every Member of this Congress proud. It is not perfect, but
it is the best overall blueprint that any country in the world has ever
come up with. We have the lead in all telecommunications fields. This
bill allows us to sprint out further and look behind us over our
shoulder at No. 2 and No. 3 in the world.
We should not delay yet another 2 years. Let us pass this bill.
On the issue of spectrum, for each of us here in Washington there is
a channel 4, a channel 7, a channel 9. Next to it is a channel 3, a
channel 6, a channel 8. The broadcasters will be given channels 3, 6,
and 8. They will convert over to digital on those channels, and then
they have to give back the old channels here in Washington. Channel 4,
7, and 9 must be given back, and then we can auction off those
channels. They are only left with the same amount of band width as they
have ever had.
Let us not have this red herring to float out here on the floor.
There is no digital spectrum, there is no analog spectrum. There is
spectrum. You use digital equipment or analog equipment. The
broadcasters need time to convert over to digital equipment. The
spectrum is the same.
I want to compliment, finally, the people who constructed this bill.
On my staff, Colin Crowell and David Moulton who worked tirelessly.
David Leach, chief staffer for the minority; Alan Roth and Andy Levin
on our side. Mike Regan, Cathy Reid, Christy Strawman on the majority
side. Michael O'Rielly, J.D. Derderian, Steve Cope.
This bill was put together after thousands of hours of discussion. It
is a very good bill for the future of this country. We will have to
come back and revisit it again and again in order to ensure that we
continue to perfect that which we seek for this country. But this bill
is the best that any in the world have ever seen.
We are breaking ground that Japan and Germany and France and England
do not have the nerve to take. We are going to enter a brave new world
where our companies will be forced to produce the best products, the
best service at the lowest price and highest quality that will be sold
around the world. Some companies will be winners, some will be losers.
{time} 1600
Many more will be winners than losers. Our country ultimately will be
the big winner. This is a good bill. It is one that this House should
be proud of. It is a bipartisan product of work over a 4-year period.
Again, I compliment the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman
from Virginia, Mr. Bliley, and my good friend, the gentleman from
Texas, Jack Fields, for his hard and courageous work on this bill; the
gentleman from Michigan, John Dingell, chairman, once and future; and
all the Members, minority and majority who have contributed to this
process. It is something this House will be proud of.
It will be, when we look back, the one product out of this 2-year
period where all Members of Congress, when they are sitting in their
rocking chairs, can point back to and say ``I was there when the
blueprint of the 21st century was noted on the floor of the House of
Congress.'' Vote ``yes'' on this telecommunications bill.
Mr. Speaker, over a number of years, Congress has sought to update
antiquated communications laws while remaining true to the three core
principles of the Communications Act of 1934 that have guided
communications policy for decades: universal service, diversity, and
localism.
These three principles have served our Nation well and have helped
bring Americans the finest communications technology and service in the
world. The challenge for policymakers is to reform the rules in a way
that retains these core values as they are impacted by two new factors:
rapid technological change and fierce competition.
In many ways, the conference report on S. 652 makes great progress in
accomplishing this task. In fact, many of the key policy proposals
embodied in the legislation trace their roots to the Markey-Fields and
the Dingell-Brooks legislation of the 103d Congress--H.R. 3636 and H.R.
3626, which were approved by the House by an overwhelming 423 to 5
vote. For example, it will help establish learning links to K-12
schools, libraries, and hospitals. It contains expanded privacy
protections for consumers. It unbundles set-top boxes and other
interactive equipment so consumers can buy the equipment of their
choice. It helps to ensure access by disabled persons to
telecommunications equipment and services. The bill will make sure that
universal service evolves over time and that all competitors contribute
to the system. It allows the phone industry into the cable business and
vice versa. It breaks down the last vestiges of monopoly control over
local telephone service as a condition of Bell entry into new business
opportunities. These were all elements of the Markey-Fields legislation
of the 103d Congress.
The conference report on S. 652 reflects a series of compromises
between the House and Senate that resolve to my satisfaction the series
of objections I raised to H.R. 1555 when it was approved by the House
last August. The conference report on S. 652 being brought back to this
body is a much-improved piece of legislation. It scales back or removes
many of the problematic provisions of H.R. 1555 while retaining
procompetitive, pro- consumer measures that I strongly support.
Title I of the legislation will break down barriers to competition in
the so-called local loop. Ridding the communications industry of the
last vestiges of its monopoly past has long been a goal of mine. I
believe strongly that we need to bring competition to every nook and
corner of the telecommunications industry and break down monopoly
barriers so that small companies and electronic entrepreneurs could get
into the game, create jobs, and compete for consumers.
My overarching policy objective in this telecommunications
legislation has been to create jobs and choices for the American
people. For this reason I have consistently opposed monopolies and
worked to rein in monopoly power and abuses wherever they arise. Why?
Because monopolies limit choices. Monopolies retard technological
development. Monopolies do not avail consumers of the lowest prices and
the highest quality.
For me, competition has consistently been the preferred vehicle for
bringing affordable and high-quality telecommunications technologies to
the American consumer.
The compromise bill will allow the regional bell operating Companies
into the long distance business, telephone companies into the cable
television business, and the long distance industry, cable industry,
and others into the local phone business. Over the long term I believe
that increased competition between and among these hitherto separate
industries will create tens of thousands of jobs. Moreover, I believe
that the real explosion in terms of job creation, innovation, and new
services will come from the computer and software industry as it
converges with the telecommunications industry and further expands
high-technology networking in the country.
The original House proposal would have deregulated cable systems
within 15 months of the date of enactment. The pending legislation will
deregulate the rates of most cable systems 3 years from now--in March
1999. The rationale for deregulating cable systems at that point is due
largely to the success of the Cable Act of 1992. Although the cable
industry fought the provision vigorously, the Cable Act of 1992 gave
emerging satellite competitors and others access to cable programming,
making competition viable. I am encouraged by the progress that direct
broadcast satellite companies and wireless cable companies are making
in signing up customers and competing against incumbent cable
operators. It is my hope that robust competition will develop between
these industries by 1999 to an extent that sufficiently avails
consumers of affordable marketplace choices for multichannel video
programming.
In addition, many of the cable provisions of the House bill that I
found objectionable have been favorably resolved in the pending bill.
The legislation no longer requires 3 percent of subscribers to complain
to the FCC prior to inducing a rate review. Instead, franchising
authorities may complain to the Commission after receiving consumer
complaints. The legislation also does not contain provisions that would
have generally and prematurely deregulated subscriber equipment.
The legislation also requires the Commission to resolve challenges to
must-carry status within 120 days after a request is filed with the
Commission. Broadcast stations have historically been important sources
of local news, public affairs programming, and other local broadcast
services. This category of service is an important part of the public
interest determination to be made by the Commission when
[[Page H1170]]
deciding whether a broadcast renewal application shall be granted by
the Commission. To prevent local television broadcast signals from
being subject to noncarriage or repositioning by cable television
systems and those providing cable services, I believe it is important
to recognize and reaffirm the importance of mandatory carriage of local
commercial television stations, as implemented by Commission rules and
regulations.
The conference report also contains provisions which would allow
registered utility holding companies an exemption from the Public
Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 [PUHCA]. PUHCA is a complex statute
that regulates the operations of large registered multistate electric
and gas utility companies. It requires registered holding companies to
obtain prior SEC approval before establishing affiliates, issuing
securities, or entering into new lines of business. The act affects the
ability of registered to enter into telecommunications because PUHCA
restricts registered utility diversification into nonutility businesses
by requiring such businesses to be functionally related to the
utilities core business--i.e., at least 50 percent of such businesses
must serve core utility functions such as internal business
communications.
PUHCA was enacted to deal with the fact that State PUC's cannot
effectively regulate the operations of multistate utility holding
companies with complex corporate structures and an ability to cross-
subsidize at the expense of captive ratepayers. While much has changed
since PUHCA was enacted in 1935, the electric utility business remains
a monopoly and there remains a temptation for self-dealing and cross-
subsidization at the expense of captive utility ratepayers.
Many House conferees felt that unless we end the electric utilities'
continued monopoly over electricity generation, we must retain certain
controls and protections if we were to allow PUHCA-registered holding
companies to diversify into telecommunications. We felt that PUHCA
provisions of the Senate bill do not adequately address the threat of
cross-subsidization or self-dealing at the expense of captive utility
ratepayers.
Despite our strong reluctance to including PUHCA-TELCO language in
this bill, we were able to work out on an approach based on the EWG
provisions of EPACT that would adequately protect consumers and
investors. This compromise would:
Require the FCC to certify a registered's telecommunications company
is PUHCA-exempt for specific telecommunications purposes.
Certification of the telecommunications entity is necessary to ensure
that it is exempt from PUHCA solely for enumerated telecommunications
activities.
This is based on EWG model that has been highly successful, with over
250 applications approved to date.
Provide for state prior approval for converting existing rate-based
facilities for use by the exempt telecommunications company.
This protects electric consumers investment in facilities constructed
for their benefit (otherwise such facilities might be transferred to
the telecommunications affiliate at less than fair market value.
This protects captive ratepayers from subsidizing telecommunications
activities that don't benefit them.
Grant the SEC authority to obtain risk assessment information
regarding financings of the exempt telecommunications company so that
it can assess a substantial adverse impact of such financings on the
registered holding company, in light of total invested in core utility
operations, telecommunications, exempt wholesale generators, and
foreign utility companies.
This will allow the SEC to take action to deny a proposed financing
of an EWG, FUCO, or utility affiliate if it determines that the
financial health of the registered is in danger as a result of
telecommunications financings.
Provide for prior State and local approval of affiliate transactions.
This ensures captive ratepayers do not pay an inflated price for
telecommunications service, due to the incentive to use a monopoly
market, electricity, to subsidize entry into a competitive one,
telecom.
Assure regulators access to books and records and provide audit
authority.
This is necessary to ensure State and Federal regulators can examine
all relevant utility and affiliates records to ensure cross-
subsidization is not occurring.
Assure no preemption of State/local authority to protect electricity
consumers.
I believe that this is an acceptable compromise on this difficult
issue, and I commend the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], and the gentleman from Colorado
[Mr. Schaefer] for their work on this matter.
The conference report on S. 652 also contains a provision that I
authored as part of H.R. 3636 in the last session of Congress and that
was embodied by legislation authored by Chairman Bliley and myself in
this session. Section 304 of the bill will unbundle set-top boxes,
converter boxes, and other interactive communications equipment and
make them available for purchase from third parties. I believe that
this is a procompetitive, proconsumer provision that will enable
computer companies, telecommunications equipment providers, and other
entrepreneurs to innovate and sell new high-technology gadgets to
consumers without having to sell out to the owner of the wire that
delivers multichannel video programming. I believe this will help to
replicate for the interactive communications equipment market the
success that manufacturers of customer premises equipment [CPE] have
had in creating and selling all sorts of new phones, faxes, and other
equipment subsequent to the implementation of rules unbundling CPE from
common carrier networks.
The conference report on S. 652 is most improved in its treatment of
mass media ownership issues. I had battled and fought against the mass
media provisions of H.R. 1555 because I felt that such provisions
indiscriminately repealed rules that helped protect important values
such as localism and diversity. During floor consideration of H.R. 1555
in August I successfully amended the bill to scale back the TV network
audience reach from 50 percent to 35 percent and reinstated the
broadcast-cable crossownership prohibition. The conference report
states that the Commission's regulations on national ownership caps
should be increased to the 35 percent level and that limitations on the
number of stations one entity could own be eliminated. This policy
decision reflects a carefully calibrated balance and I believe that the
duly considered view of Congress on these matters should settle the
issue for many years to come.
With respect to the broadcast-cable crossownership rule, the
conference report explicitly states to the FCC that repeal of the
statutory prohibition shall not be interpreted as a signal to repeal
the Commission's broadcast-cable crossownership rule or even to
initiate a rulemaking to repeal the rule. The conference report
expressly did not seek to wipe out the broadcast-cable crossownership
rule and therefore the Commission is advised not to expend its limited
resources reviewing this issue.
Much improved is the provision eliminating local ownership limits on
radio stations. Although both the House and Senate bills eliminated the
local ownership limits of 4 stations per market but because of concerns
expressed by myself and others on the conference committee, as well as
by the Clinton-Gore administration, local limits were reinstated in
conference. The conference report revises section 73.3555(a) of the
Commission's regulations to provide for ownership limitations based
upon market size. The conference report does not define the term
``radio market'' and the Commission will need to apply a definition of
such term as part of revisions contemplated by this section.
I also applaud the fact that the bill includes two issues that I have
long advocated. The conference report includes important new consumer
privacy protections and also includes a provision similar to one that I
authored as part of H.R. 3636 that will include links to schools,
libraries, and hospitals as part of a telecommunications universal
service obligation and contribution. Privacy and security concerns on
the information superhighway will continue to grow as the network grows
and as more and more personal information is digitized and rides on the
highway. More work needs to be done in this area to protect
transactional information and to ensure that people have every
opportunity and right to protect their data with encryption
technologies. I will continue to work on this issue but the privacy
provisions of S. 652 are good ones and an important down payment for
consumers.
As many of you may know, establishing learning links to K-12 schools
has long been a concern of mine and the conference report on S. 652
will make such links affordable for every school in the country. I
believe it is imperative that we link all the classrooms in the country
because it is the only way that we can mitigate against a growing
digital divide where some schools get access and others do not. We must
bring all our kids along to the future. No nation can hope to prosper
in a fiercely competitive global economy where information is the coin
of the realm if it does not give the bottom 10, 15, or 20 percent of
its society the Information Age tools necessary to compete for jobs in
such an economy.
Another benefit of this bill is the inclusion of the V-chip, an
initiative I launched in 1993. The V-chip is the nickname of a feature
which, when included in a television set, allows the viewer to block
programming that is rated. Congress has moved forward with this
provision because it is a technological solution to a problem facing
parents everyday--how to effectively enforce standards in their own
homes regarding what is suitable for their children to watch on
television.
[[Page H1171]]
I am personally very gratified that the provision sponsored in the
House by myself, Representative Dan Burton, Representative John Moran,
and Representative John Spratt, was chosen by the conferees as the
basis for compromise. This has ensured that the development of a model
rating system as envisioned by this bill will, under no circumstances,
be imposed by rule on any broadcaster. In fact, under this bill, no
program will ever be rated unless industry participants decide to do
the ratings themselves. No government entity will ever rate a show; no
government bureaucracy will ever rate a show; no government agency is
empowered to sanction any broadcaster for refusing to rate a show.
It is our hope that each segment of the television industry will
eventually recognize that giving parents information that allows them
to protect their children will improve, not harm, free, over-the-air
broadcasting. It is simply an update of the on-off switch of the three-
network 1950's to the 500 channel universe of the coming century.
Movies are being rated, computer games are being rated, the Internet is
introducing screening devices, cable television is prepared to rate
their shows, and it is inevitable that broadcast television will expand
and refine the application of ``Parental Discretion Advised'' warnings
to the whole range of shows considered potentially harmful to children.
It will be several years before television sets include the V-chip.
First, the industry must develop a ratings system. Second, the set
manufacturers must build new sets to include the electronics to read
the ratings. But every parent will be pleased to know that, the day
President Clinton signs this bill, it will have been declared in the
public interest for this country to warn parents of programming that
could harm their kids and to provide parents the means to block such
programming out of the home, if they choose, with this simple, ratings-
and-blocking device.
Finally, I want to commend Chairman Bliley, Mr. Dingell, Chairman
Fields, and other members of the conference committee for their
excellent work in bringing together the compromises necessary to reach
final agreement.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself my remaining time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayworth). The gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Conyers] is recognized for 30 seconds.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, the insurance premium issue is not a red
herring. It is a matter of both reality and public policy. If we were
able to auction it to the networks, everyone has recognized it could
generate billions and help balance the budget. This bill gives the
insurance premium to the networks rent-free, and no Member will be able
to justify this at a time when we are chopping Medicare in order to
balance the budget.
I want to thank Chairman Bliley for making the process of debate and
consideration of this important economic bill open and bipartisan--for
members of both the Commerce and Judiciary Committees.
LONG DISTANCE AND RELATED ISSUES
I said at the beginning of this debate that the antitrust laws and
the Antitrust Division must remain at the very center of the
telecommunications debate. Antitrust law is synonymous with low prices
and consumer protection--and that is exactly what we need in our
telecommunications industry.
The Antitrust Division is the principal government agency responsible
for antitrust enforcement. Its role in the MFJ has given it decades of
expertise in telecommunications competition issues. The Division has
unrivaled expertise in making predictive judgments and in assessing
marketplace effects. The FCC by contrast has no antitrust background,
and is facing the threat of significant downsizing.
This is why its so important that the Justice Department was given an
enhanced role in reviewing possible Bell entry into long distance.
Under the conference agreement, the FCC must consult with and give
substantial weight to the views of the Justice Department regarding
such Bell entry--this is a necessary, but not sufficient condition to
meeting the overall public interest requirement concerning Bell entry.
The final conference agreement therefore ensures that the Justice
Department's views will be given serious substantive merits by the
courts on appeal as well as the FCC.
The Justice Department will be able to use whatever standard they
believe is appropriate, including the so-called eight-c test under
which Bell entry is not permitted into long distance or manufacturing
unless there is no substantial possibility the Bell could use its
market power to impede competition. It is also my understanding that
the Department will retain its full statutory authority to represent
the interests of the United States before the courts on appeal.
The importance of the long-distance entry provisions are underscored
by the very few narrowly drawn exceptions to meeting the entry
conditions. The grandfather for previous MFJ waivers under section
271(f) applies only to the particular Bell and the scope of particular
activity addressed in the waiver. The exception for incidental services
under section 271(b)(3) and 271(b) is to be narrowly construed. And the
regulatory forbearance provisions set forth in new section 10 do not
permit the FCC from forbearing enforcing the long distance entry
requirements.
It is also important to note that even after entry occurs, section
271 applies separate affiliate requirements for at least 3 years in
order to check potential market power abuses. And although some joint
marketing is permitted by the Bells under these provisions, both the
Bells and their affiliates would be subject to nondiscrimination
requirements. And the Bell and its affiliate must also make the
individual services that are jointly marketed available to competitors
on the same terms they make them available to each other.
In addition, the bill contains an all-important antitrust savings
clause which ensures that any and all telecommunications merger and
anticompetitive activities are fully subject to the antitrust laws.
Telco-cable mergers and all other broadcast, media, or
telecommunications transactions will be fully subject to antitrust
review, regardless of how they are treated under the bill or the FCC.
And the bill includes a very useful repeal of 47 U.S.C. 221(a) which
could have exempted mergers between telephone companies from antitrust
and other legal review. This was a holdover from the 1920's, an era
when Federal telecommunications policy promoted competition over
competition.
I would also like to remind the Members that this legislation would
not be possible had the Justice Department not broken up the old Bell
monopoly in 1984. The 1984 MFJ--which broke the Bell System into AT&T
and the seven regional Bells, and which has been so ably supervised by
Judge Harold Greene for 12 years--has unleashed one of the most
significant competitive forces in our economy.
Since the MFJ opened up the long distance and manufacturing markets
to competition, we have seen a 70-percent reduction in long-distance
prices and an explosion in product innovation. The legislation rightly
recognizes that it's time to open up the local loop to competition as
well. And by maintaining the role of the antitrust laws, the bill helps
to ensure that the Bells cannot use their market power to impede
competition and harm consumers.
Other Issues
However, aside from the long-distance provisions of the bill, which I
support, I have a number of substantive concerns with the final
conference agreement.
The cable provisions allow for deregulation before the advent of
competition, raising the specter of unregulated monopoly. Two
Congresses ago we spent consideration time and energy in adopting
legislation to protect consumers from price gouging, and we were
finally able to pass the bill over President Bush's veto. This Congress
the Republicans have decided that consumer protection must take a back
seat to industry demands. Although a small concession to consumers was
made by delaying the date of price increases until 1999, there is no
guarantee there will be any cable competition by this time.
The bill will also allow for an unprecedented increase in media
concentration. At a time when we need greater and more diverse media
voices, the bill will eliminate the national radio and television
ownership rules, scale back local concentration rules, and allow
corporations to simultaneously control broadcast and cable systems.
The bill also places a number of heavy-handed burdens on the taxing
and regulatory authority of State and local governments. The cities
will no longer be able to tax direct broadcast services. Local
governments are also forced to give up their power to regulate access
agreements. Rather than grant the rights-of-way a city or county
believes are in the public interest, they must comply with a new set of
rules which come down from Washington. In doing so, the conference
report completely ignores the new unfunded-mandate law.
general leave
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to include extraneous material on
this legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleagues: As I said before, the
gentleman from Texas, Jack Fields, the chairman of the subcommittee;
his vice chairman, the gentleman from Ohio, Mike Oxley, without whose
diligent work we would not be here; for the
[[Page H1172]]
wonderful cooperation on the part of the minority: the ranking member
of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey; the
ranking member on the full committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Dingell. The staff, as the ranking minority member of the subcommittee,
the gentleman from Massachusetts pointed out, has done yeoman work.
They have worked weekends, they have worked nights, and I know they
will be glad when this day is over, as we will be.
I remember working with the gentleman back in the early 1980's, when
Mr. Baxter and Mr. Brown reached an agreement. We came close to getting
a bill then, but we were blocked at the end. One thing or another has
frustrated us in every Congress since. Here we are on this historic
day.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. This is a bill that we can be proud
of. Is it perfect? No, and it never will be, but bear in mind, this is
the most extensive rewrite of telecommunications law in 60 years. Mr.
Speaker, the reason it has taken 60 years is because it is complex. It
is difficult. It is intricate. All of these players believe in
competition, but they each feel they are entitled to a fair advantage.
Through the diligent work of the committees and the conference, we
think we have created as level a playing field as we know how to do. As
we stand here, all of the players in this complex act support this
bill; some, truly, more than others. But it is a great day. It will be
competition. It will give the American consumer greater choice. We will
be leading the cutting edge as we go into the 21st century as a result
of this bill. It is the greatest jobs bill we are likely to pass in
this decade.
Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Speaker, this bill is good for consumers. It provides
a supermarket in the telecommunications industry with one stop shopping
for cable and phone service if you wan it. This bill is good for our
children. It provides incentives to bring technology and the Internet
into our grade schools, middle schools, high schools, and libraries.
Congress is--at last--taking into its own hands the deregulation of
the telecommunications market which has been handled in a piecemeal
fashion by the courts since the 1982 breakup of AT&T. Despite this
inefficiency, States have been moving forward. In my home State of
California, telephone companies have recently been allowed to offer
local long-distance services and their local markets have been opened
to facilities-based competition.
With this conference agreement, we acknowledge the changes that are
taking place in the marketplace an insure that the process by which all
competitors compete is fair and evenhanded.
I regret that I had to oppose the rule on this bill because of the
unconstitutional language relating to abortion. I appreciate
representative Lowey's efforts to clarify that everyone's first
amendment rights should be protected on the Internet. In light of her
efforts, I am now prepared to support final passage of this measure.
I do want to point to one other concern however, relating to my
district. The goal of this legislation is to create an environment in
which new and expanded services are delivered to consumers. In some
cases that can best be accomplished through the combined resources of
smaller local telephone companies and local cable companies.
Section 652 sets limitations on the size of the local telephone
companies that may own more than a 10 percent interest in their local
cable operator. It was my understanding that the intent of the
legislation was to limit these activities to local telephone companies
below tier-one companies in size.
Further, section 652 sets forth conditions under which the FCC may
grant a waiver from these restrictions if to do so is in the public
interest and the local franchising authority approves. There may be a
situation or two where a local cable company and local telephone
company have been already negotiating a sale under current law but will
find themselves facing a new set of rules before the sale is complete.
If the FCC finds this to be in the public interest, particularly if
we are talking about small, non-tier-one companies, in my view this is
the kind of circumstance for which Congress has created the waiver.
And since it is the intent of Congress to promote competition while
encouraging localism, a circumstance in which a locally owned, non-
tier-one local telephone company is seeking to purchase a local cable
system serving just part of its telephone service area, and the
telephone service area is subject to competition or impending
competition from large national and international telecommunications
conglomerates, should be the kind of situation giving rise to a waiver.
Mr. Speaker, there is a lack of consistency in the boundaries of
telephone service areas, cable franchising areas, and census bureau
population boundaries. Consequently, the guideline in the bill of
12,000 cable subscribers in an urbanized area should not be an obstacle
to serving the public interest and should not restrict the FCC from
granting waivers for providers serving more subscribers than the limit.
Finally, if the FCC finds no anticompetitive effects to a proposed
transaction, it should grant a waiver.
I urge by colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to vote for this bill because it
promotes competition and growth in the communications industry, and I
believe that will benefit consumers.
I must, however, express my strong opposition to one particular
provision, section 507. This section clearly violates the first
amendment's prohibition against laws restricting freedom of speech.
As some of our colleagues know, section 507 of this conference report
incorporates by reference part of the Federal criminal law--18 U.S.C.
1462--and, by doing so, would make it a crime punishable by up to 10
years in prison to transmit or receive information through an
interactive computer about abortion procedures.
While this bill contains other constitutionally questionable
restrictions on the content of information transmitted or received
through a computer, a flat prohibition on transmission or receipt of
abortion information, like that contained in section 507 is, as the
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary has conceded, clearly
unconstitutional.
While the authors of this bill have stated on the floor of the House
of Representatives today that it was not their intention to restrict
free speech on the matter of abortion and have stated their
understanding of the unconstitutional nature of section 507, it is
difficult to understand how and why this provision was ever included in
this bill. The inclusion of this offensive provision is a testament to
the terribly flawed process used to bring this conference report to the
floor today.
The Members of the House have been given assurances that including
this provision restricting free speech on the subject of abortion was a
mistake we should act quickly and in a bipartisan fashion to correct
this insult to the first amendment rights of all Americans.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 652, the
Telecommunications Act of 1995, which represents the most comprehensive
overall of our Nation's telecommunications law since 1934. This
historic legislation seeks to provide consumers with more choices and
lower rates by promoting competition among telecommunications
providers.
I opposed the House-passed version of this legislation because I did
not believe it would have adequately protected American consumers from
unwarranted cable and telephone rate increases. I was also very
concerned that it would have allowed only a few large companies to
control what Americans watch on television, listen to on the radio, or
read in the newspapers.
While I continue to have reservations about several provisions of
this legislation, I would like to commend the members of the conference
committee for making significant improvements in many areas of the
bill. The conference report does much more than the original House bill
to benefit consumers. It deregulates the cable industry more gradually,
raises broadcast ownership limits in a way that will promote
competition and preserve diversity, and seeks to improve phone service
and lower phone rates by leveling the playing field for telephone
service providers.
I remain very concerned, however, about a provision in this bill that
will criminalize the communication of information about abortion over
the Internet. Under section 507 of this bill, individuals who provide
family planning information over computer networks could be subject to
a 5-year prison term. Even mentioning the word ``abortion'' could be
considered a criminal act in some circumstances. Mr. Speaker, this is
clearly unacceptable. That is why I voted against the rule under which
this legislation is now being considered.
This bill should be about giving consumers a choice among competing
telecommunications providers, not about threatening a woman's right to
reproductive choice. This Information Age gag rule, which is likely to
be found unconstitutional, has no place in this important legislation
and should be eliminated. I am, therefore, extremely pleased that
Representative Henry Hyde, the chairman of the House Judiciary
Committee, and Representative Nita Lowey, chair of the Pro-Choice Task
Force of the Congressional Caucus on Women's Issues, have engaged in a
colloquy making it absolutely clear that this language was not intended
by the drafters of the bill and will be removed from the act as soon as
possible. While I am confident that this ban is unconstitutional, I am
nevertheless eager to ensure
[[Page H1173]]
that Congress acts quickly to permanently remove this language from the
bill.
I am also concerned that S. 652 could infringe upon Americans'
constitutional right to free speech by allowing the Government
to police the Internet for indecent material. Under this legislation,
individuals who disseminate material that the Federal Government
believes may violate contemporary community standards of decency could
face prison terms. Thus, a librarian could be held liable for putting
classic books such as ``Catcher in the Rye'' and ``Ulysses'' on line
since they include profanity. While we all agree that children must not
have access to indecent or pornographic materials, I do not believe
that Government regulation of the information superhighway is the best
way to solve the problem.
That is why I voted for an amendment to the House-passed bill that
would have allowed computer users and computer network providers to
police the Internet, rather than the Federal Government. This amendment
would have prohibited the Federal Communications Commission [FCC] from
regulating the Internet and other interactive computer services, but
would have encouraged computer network providers to voluntarily screen
and prevent the distribution of obscene and other objectionable
materials on computer networks. I sincerely hope that Congress will
consider legislation later this year to institute this more reasonable
approach to protecting children from indecent material.
Mr. Speaker, the time has come to pass a comprehensive
telecommunications reform bill. Despite several shortcomings, S. 652 is
a balanced bill that will lead to technological advances and provide
Americans with a telecommunications network for the 21st century. More
importantly, the final bill makes dramatic advances over the earlier
version in protecting consumers. I urge my colleagues to vote for this
important legislation.
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 652, the
Telecommunications Act.
I believe that this is a good bill for my State of Utah, and for the
Nation. For years, we have struggled in Congress to rewrite our
communications laws to reflect the dynamic changes that have taken
place in long distance and local telephone service, cable TV,
broadcasting, and the Internet. Passage today and likely enactment into
law in the near future represents a tremendous bipartisan effort.
First, I would like express my support for the strong provisions in
this bill which protect rural America. Over the last few months, I have
been pleased to work with rural Republicans and Democrats to insist on
strong universal service and toll-rate-averaging provisions. Late last
year, we sent a letter to conferees expressing our concerns and
identifying provisions critical to rural America. Inclusion of such
provisions in the final conference report will save the average rural
telephone user hundreds of dollars a year.
For example, the House-passed bill contained much weaker universal
service provisions than the Senate bill. Universal service is the
mechanism which ensures affordable monthly phone rates for rural
residents. The Organization for the Protection and Advancement of Small
Telephone Companies [OPASTCO] recently conducted a detailed study on
the effect of rates in a deregulated environment. This study found that
the elimination of universal service in a deregulated environment could
increase annual phone rates for rural Utahns by $198 a year.
Fortunately, the stronger Senate provision, fully protecting universal
service, prevailed.
A similar concern has been raised with respect to toll-rate
averaging--both for intrastate and interstate long-distance phone
calls. According to the same OPASTCO study, the elimination of toll
rate averaging could increase annual long-distance phone bills for
rural Utahns by $465 a year. Early House versions of the
telecommunications bill did not fully protect intrastate and interstate
toll-rate averaging. Fortunately, the bill we are now passing
reinstates these important provisions.
Finally, the bill contains a number of other important rural
protections and provisions. The one that I am proudest of is the
provision which promotes affordable access for schools, libraries, and
rural hospitals and health care facilities to the information
superhighway. When this bill first came to the House floor, I was very
disappointed to see that it contained no such provision. Therefore, I
joined with my colleagues, Representatives Morella, Lofgren, and Ney in
offering an amendment to include an affordable Internet access
requirement comparable to the one contained in the Senate. Through our
efforts, we were able to obtain the support of the distinguished
chairman of the House Commerce Committee to push for its inclusion in
the conference report. With such inclusion, we will be able to make it
easier for rural schools and libraries to gain affordable access to the
information superhighway to promote distance learning. We will be able
to make it easier for rural hospitals to implement telemedicine, an
exciting new approach to health care in less populated areas.
So, I believe this is a very good bill for rural Utah and rural
America. By unleashing the forces of competition, coupled with prudent
protections for those areas and services where full, effective
competition may not be possible, we should improve the quality, cost,
and availability of telecommunications in rural areas.
Second, I would like to express my strong support for deregulation of
the cable TV industry. Three years ago, Congress enacted a misguided
bill to regulate cable television prices. The effect of that bill was
to create a regulatory nightmare at the FCC, and a curb on the dynamic
free market growth of programming. I was in a fairly small minority who
opposed that earlier curb on free market cable TV activities. I am
pleased to see a majority of both the House and Senate are now
admitting that that was a mistake.
Third, with respect to deregulation of local and long-distance phone
service, I believe that the final provisions represent a workable and
sensible approach. It is certainly our expectation that competition
should improve local phone service for consumers.
However, many of us are aware that the transition period from a
regulated to a deregulated environment may not be easy. I am pleased to
see a stronger review role for the Department of Justice in the
conference report, to assure that this transition period does not
result in the domination by one provider, to the detriment of
competition. As this process unfolds, we in Congress should monitor
these national market developments closely to make sure that the
promise of true local phone service competition is in fact met.
Finally, I am pleased to see the inclusion in the bill of a V-chip
requirement in all new 13-inch and larger television sets. This was not
included in the original House bill, but we prevailed in adding this
provision by amendment. Increasingly, parents are becoming concerned
about the content of television programming. The use of the V-chip
gives parents increased control over what their children watch. It is a
fair, economical approach to dealing with this problem.
Is this a perfect bill? I don't think there is a Member in this body
that is satisfied with each and every provision in it. Can we
absolutely predict that the telecommunications changes we are
unleashing today will be a complete and total success? Again, no one
can really know with certainty. However, this legislation is a
balanced, well-thought-out proposal that is long overdue. To wait any
longer is to see our laws fall increasingly behind the rapidly moving
forces of change that we see in all areas of telecommunications. This
is a very good bill that should become law now.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the
Communications Act of 1995 and, more specifically, provisions in the
conference report which preserve the ability of local authorities to
protect their rights-of-way and public property.
As you may recall, 1 year ago, I stood before this body to ask for
your support in passing H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995, in
order to bring a new level of accountability to the Federal Government.
This legislation, the principal provisions of which took effect on
January 1, 1996, forces Congress to end the increasing practice of
imposing crippling mandates on States and local governments without
regard for their costs. Now the Federal Government must work
cooperatively with State and local governments to avoid new mandates.
Today, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 passed its first real
test, the Communications Act of 1995. Thanks to local governments, the
National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the
U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the Congressional Budget Office, all of
whom assisted in identifying legitimate concerns about potential
unfunded mandates in this bill, we were prepared to raise points of
order on the floor to stop the mandates.
The Commerce Committee has worked with us, representatives of the
State and local governments and other interested parties to avoid
potential unfunded mandates and protect local control over public
property and rights-of-way. We secured language that ensured local
governments retained their control over rights-of-way. The language
included in the Communications Act now adequately addresses the key
concerns that have been raised by State and local governments about
potential unfunded mandates. As proponents of unfunded mandates reform
and protecting local control over rights-of-way, we were pleased to see
this result.
I would like to express my gratitude to my mandates counterpart and
original cosponsor on the other side of the aisle, Representative
Condit, for his assistance as well as Representative Joe Barton, and
Representative Bart Stupak, true champions of State and local rights.
Mr. Speaker, unfunded mandates reform is a reality and I look forward
to working with all
[[Page H1174]]
my colleagues committed to reflecting the concerns of State and local
governments in Federal legislation.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, while I support many of the provisions in
this conference report, I have serious concerns about computer
censorship provisions included in the telecommunications agreement. In
response to a strong lobby by the Christian Coalition, conferees voted
17-16 to include a provision which would make it a felony to put
indecent material on a computer where a person under 18 can get It.
Because indecent has not been defined by the Congress or the courts,
the potential for abuse is great.
I do not believe the Federal Government should be involved in using a
very loosely defined to test to judge communications between
individuals. It is wrong to have the Christian Coalition judge what is
appropriate speech on the Internet or anywhere else.
I am particularly concerned about the potential impact of this
provision on HIV-prevention programs. The indecent provision has the
potential to ban explicit HIV-prevention materials from the Internet.
The Internet has great potential as a tool in HIV prevention. It has
the potential to provide accurate information that could be used by
young people to protect themselves from HIV and other sexually
transmitted diseases. According to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention [CDC], other than abstinence, the most effective way to
prevent HIV transmission is the consistent and proper use of condoms.
Organizations currently provide detailed information on the proper
use of condoms. The question remains whether individuals working for
these AIDS organizations in California could be arrested and extradited
to more conservative parts of the country because this information was
obtained by an individual under 18 years of age.
Banning HIV-prevention information does not protect young people. In
fact, it can have the opposite effect. This computer censorship
provision is wrong and should not be part of this legislation.
I am pleased that this legislation will empower parents by requiring
the development of the V-chip. This chip will allow parents to block
television programming they do not want their children to see. The V-
chip will provide parents with a tool to help in the positive up-
bringing of their children.
Mr. Speaker, there are provisions of the bill that have a significant
affect on cities, including the city of San Francisco. I am pleased
that section 253(c) recognizes the historic authority of State and
local governments to regulate and require compensation for the use of
public rights of way. It further recognizes that States and local
governments may apply different management and compensation
requirements to different telecommunications providers' to the extent
that they make different use of the public rights of way. Section
253(c) also makes clear that section 253(a) is inapplicable to right of
way management and compensation requirements so long as those entitles
that make similar demands on the public rights of way are treated in a
competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory manner. As for the issue of
FCC preemption, I am pleased that the committee agreed to support the
Senate language which authorizes the Commission to preempt the
enforcement only of State or local requirements that violate subsection
(a) or (b), not (c). The courts, not the Commission, will address
disputes under section 253(c).
The overwhelming vote in the House on Representative Barton and
Representative Stupak's amendment, as well as the unanimous acceptance
of Senator Gorton's amendment in the Senate, indicate that the Congress
wishes to protect the legitimate authority of local governments to
manage and receive compensation for use of the rights of way.
Mr. Speaker, I support the telecommunications reform legislation.
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, this is a truly historic day for
the American people. We are engaged in a discussion of a bill that
fundamentally controls a business that is the fastest growing segment
in our economy--telecommunications.
I welcome the opportunity to debate the merits of this ground-
breaking legislation. Specifically, I would like to point out my
concerns over the definition of facility-based competition. Real
competition. To be effective, any market entry test must contain
standards that clearly define the presence of local competition. Real
competition will occur only when there are facilities-based companies
serving many customers in major markets throughout the State of
Oklahoma.
As rules that define facilities-based competition are developed and
implemented, I expect those charged with that responsibility to make
certain: There are periodic studies of the degree of actual competition
in local exchange markets to determine whether the incumbent exchanges'
market power has been constrained enough to relax some of the
regulations intended to safeguard against the abuse of market power;
all local exchange service providers provide service to all customers
who request service, provide line-side interconnection and unbundling
of the local loop into its functional sub-elements--feeder and
distribution, obey the equal rules that are in place, cap prices for
exchange access services and reciprocal termination at the rates
charged by the incumbent exchanges, and allow full resale of all
service offerings.
I thank the Speaker for the opportunity to add my concerns to this
debate. I will not oppose this report and hope its passage results in
quantum improvements to telecommunications access and a better standard
of living for the American people.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference
report on S. 652, the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This report
represents one of the most monumental, deregulatory, and sweeping
legislation ever considered in the history of Congress. I commend my
colleagues, Senators Pressler and Hollings, and Congressmen Bliley,
Hyde, Fields, and Dingell for their relentless efforts to produce such
unprecedented policy in a balanced and thoughtful manner. I consider it
a great privilege to have been a member of this conference committee
which took upon the task of examining every aspect of the converging
telecommunications industry.
Mr. Speaker, this is a historic moment. Today, with passage of this
legislation, this Congress is breaking the shackles of repressive
government regulations. It is forging a new era where consumer choice,
technological development, innovation, and competition control the
marketplace, while we keep a watchful eye upon monopoly power.
This legislation marks only the second time the Government has
addressed telecommunications policy. The Communications Act of 1934,
representing the first time, was enacted when our Nation was highly
dependent upon telegraph, and believed radio and telephone technology
to be luxuries. Frankly, the Communications Act has governed
telecommunications policy for far too long. Readily available and
highly used technologies of today, such as digital overt analog
transmission, cellular and wireless technology, as well as digital
compression and interactive data transmission were not even within the
realm of imagination of society in 1934.
I am here today to acknowledge that over the past several months I
have had the opportunity to observe and examine advanced technologies
which are not yet available to consumers. That is why I will be the
first to admit that it would be impossible for us to predict what
technologies and their applications will be available next year. This
legislation was crafted fully aware of the fact and the stranglehold
the Government was placing upon its development. I firmly believe that
this legislation will unleash such competitive forces and innovation
that our Nation will see more technological development and deployment
in the next 5 years than we have already seen in this century. With
that technological development will come hundreds of thousands of new
jobs and tens of billions of private industry dollars being invested in
infrastructure and technology in an explosive, yet steady, manner.
This landmark legislation is predicated upon two things: competition
and the consumer. Our society is founded on the belief that competition
produces new technologies, new applications for those technologies, and
new services, all at a lower cost to the consumer. S. 652 puts the
consumer in control. Cable companies, local telephone companies, long-
distance companies, broadcast stations, wireless providers, utility
companies, among many others, will all be competing for the consumer's
business, offering new technologies, better services, and more choices
at a lower cost.
Much of my support for this legislation is based on not only the
consumer benefits gained through lower costs and better services, but
through the access and availability to services and technologies in
rural areas such as the Fifth Congressional District of Indiana. The
impact of this nationwide network and universal access in rural areas
will be revolutionary. We're not talking about just making sure small
communities have cable services and can order a pizza from their
television sets. This legislation will bring the world's leading heart
surgeon into the surgery room at Jasper County Hospital and other rural
hospitals. It will allow hog farmers in rural Carroll County to access
the latest veterinary research to diagnose their herd's disease.
Classrooms in Cass County can have access to the libraries of Oxford
University. We will be bringing precision farming technology to Benton
County, IN, through the use of global positioning satellites.
All of these extraordinary services and benefits are being obtained
by ending the strangle hold of Government on the telecommunications
industry. I truly believe that the Telecommunications Act of 1996
represents one of the greatest proconsumer, job creation, and
infrastructure investment bill ever considered
[[Page H1175]]
by Congress. I fully support this measure and urge my colleagues to do
the same.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the concerns
raised by some over the language in the bill protecting minors from
indecent communications over the Internet.
At a meeting of House conferees I offered the compromise language
replacing a harmful-to-minors standard with indecency and it was
adopted as the House proffer on cyberporn.
I am appalled by the unjustified hue and cry that this indecency
provision will chill free speech and is therefore unconstitutional.
This indecency standard has survived First Amendment scrutiny by the
U.S. Supreme Court as applied in a wide variety of circumstances. In
FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978) the Supreme Court held that the
broadcast of indecent material could be banned during hours when
children were likely to be viewers or listeners. In stating why
broadcast indecency could be restricted Justice Steven who delivered
the opinion pointed to the facts that broadcasts extend into the
privacy of the home and is uniquely accessible to children. The
Internet is very similar to the broadcast medium in those respects--it
extends into the privacy of the home and it is uniquely accessible to
children.
Some have even claimed that an indecency standard will keep great
literary works such as ``Catcher in the Rye'' off the Internet. I
strongly disagree and I believe that the definition of indecency, which
is very narrow, makes this clear. The exact definition of indecency is
``any material that in context depicts or describes, in terms patently
offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or
excretory activities or organs.''
The context of the material cannot be disregarded when making a
determination of indecency. Therefore, if someone transmits the entire
novel ``Catcher in the Rye'' they would not be violating an indecency
standard, but if they transmit only certain passages out of context
they might. Indecency is not an inherent attribute of words or
pictures, but rather a matter of context and conduct. In addition, it
must be evaluated by prevailing community standards, not the views of
just a few individuals.
We need to maintain a high standard when it comes to protecting
children from exposure to pornography. The indecency provision in this
legislation is right on target. It will keep smut away from children
and protect on-line services or information providers who make a good-
faith effort to keep indecent material away from children.
In addition, a very important factor cannot be overlooked--the battle
over cyberporn threatened to completely throw the progression of
telecommunications legislation off track. By bringing the House proffer
on cyberporn closer to that contained in the Senate bill, my compromise
prevented conferees from getting bogged down in this debate and allowed
today's debate to come to pass.
Regarding Section 271(d)(2)(A) (Consultation with the Attorney General)
The conference agreement provides that the FCC must notify the
Attorney General promptly when an application is filed by a Bell
operating company for in-region interLATA relief. Before making its
determination on the merits of the application, the FCC must consult
with the Attorney General. In this regard, the Attorney General may
submit an evaluation to the FCC using any antitrust standard that the
Attorney General believes the FCC should consider in assessing the
application. This requirement recognizes the special expertise of the
Attorney General in antitrust and competitive matters.
However, this paragraph expressly provides that the Attorney
General's evaluation does not have a preclusive effect on the FCC. In
other words, the FCC is not required to adopt or even agree with that
evaluation or with the conclusions of the Attorney General. While the
FCC must give the Attorney General's evaluation substantial weight, it
is not required to follow the Attorney General's views. Moreover, the
FCC is free to give substantial weight--indeed greater weight if
justified by the proffer--to the evidence offered by the applicant,
Bell operating company. This is also true both of the conclusions and
the recommendations concerning public interest, convenience and
necessity or concerning competitive issues.
This provision is also not intended to give the views of the Attorney
General any special weight or entitle them to any special deference
upon judicial review of an FCC decision under this subsection. The
critical determination under this subsection is the FCC's determination
whether the Bell operating company has met the requirements of the Act.
The courts will accord that FCC determination ``full Chevron
deference'' as provided for in Chevron v. National Resources Defense
Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the conferees for
their work on this important legislation which will shepherd in a new
era of technological advancement and opportunity for all Americans. My
focus on this telecommunications legislation has been on ensuring that
Guam has the same access to telecommunications technology and advances
in the information superhighway as other U.S. citizens.
In this regard, the universal service provision is an important
statement of principle. It ensures that consumers in all regions of the
Nation, including insular areas, should have access to
telecommunications and information services and at rates that are
reasonably comparable to rates charged for similar services in Urban
area.
When the universal service provision was first drafted, it neglected
to mention whether or not it applied to insular areas. After I brought
this oversight to the attention of Chairman Pressler on the Senate
Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, he acknowledged that
the addition of ``insular'' in the universal service section was an
important clarification and agreed to clarify this definition.
The addition of the universal service provision is an important
statement of principle at a time when Guam and the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands [CNMI] are pursuing inclusion in the North
American Numbering Plan [NANP]. NANP inclusion would help to overcome
both domestic and international misconceptions about the political
status of Guam and the CNMI, ensure that the U.S. citizens on these
islands have the same opportunities as all other Americans and improve
access to the information superhighway. The inclusion of ``insular'' in
the universal service section reinforces the need to include Guam and
the CNMI in the NANP.
Again, I want to thank the conferees for their attention to this
important clarification and for their inclusion of the universal
service provision in the final legislation.
Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Speaker, I want to comment both Chairman Bliley and
Chairman Fields for the leadership they have shown, as well as the
diligence and perseverance exhibited in shepherding this long overdue
telecommunications bill through the legislative process. This
conference report represents the first major overhaul of the
communications industry in the last 60 years. This historic legislation
reduces the Federal regulatory burden on the communications industry,
and as a consequence of more competition and less regulation, American
consumers should benefit from a greater choice of telecommunications
services with lower prices and higher quality than is presently
available.
Currently, consumers of many telecommunication services in America do
not benefit from the innovation of new services and constant pressure
for lower prices that characterize competitive markets. For example,
providers of local telephone services are currently protected from
direct competition by a complex web of Federal, State, and local laws.
This legislation, if it remains true to its intent, will cut through
that inertia and allow competitors to offer local telephone services.
We have already seen what real competition has done to long distance
rates--I can only hope the same is true for local rates.
This historic act has the potential to be the largest job creation
bill in a decade. It is estimated that it will lead to $30 to $50
billion in consumer and business benefits and will hasten America's
entry into the information age. The Telecommunications Act will unleash
American ingenuity and free American entrepreneurs to bring innovative,
exciting new products and services to market. It's about time that
technological advances will be tested in the marketplace, and not in
Washington or the Federal courts.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference
agreement, and I request permission to revise and extend my remarks.
Mr. Speaker, unless I miss my guess, the bill before us will probably
be the most historically important piece of legislation this Congress
will consider. The telecommunications industry is growing rapidly in
size and significance, primarily because telecommunication is about
information and information is the future.
The law currently governing telecommunications, the Communications
Act of 1934, was written for the era of radio, and while it has been
amended several times since, it still maintains an outdated regulatory
structure designed for an era where sources of information were scarce.
But technology has blurred the lines among telephone, television,
computer, and newspaper, to the point where all three can potentially
be the same thing.
And with the advent of the information age, we need to recognize the
need for competition among information media so that the free
marketplace of ideas can be communicated through a free marketplace of
information outlets. This bill seeks to exploit the market's ability to
maximize quality, maximize consumer choice, and minimize prices.
Mr. Speaker, I supported the Contract With America. But years after
the the contract is a footnote in history, the significance of this law
will still be obvious, for this is Congress' most important step ever
toward embracing the information era. And through this legislation, we
[[Page H1176]]
embrace it with the freedom and efficiency that only the free market
can provide. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about S. 652 to ensure
that its provisions are implemented in a manner that ensures fair
competition in the telecommunications marketplace.
A major objective of S. 652, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, is
the creation and maintenance of competition in local markets. Since
States will play a key role in implementing this Federal legislation,
it is vital that they act consistently with this Federal aim.
More specifically, section 253 of S. 652 provides that States and
local governments shall not impose any requirement that prohibits or
has the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide
telecommunications services, and permits the FCC to preempt any actions
that violate or are inconsistent with this policy. Because new entry is
a fundamental of competition, it is most important that the FCC act
expeditiously on any complaint that alleges a violation of this
provision. Further, the Commission must ensure that any State or local
requirement fully conforms to the act's standard.
I want to assure all my colleagues that I will closely follow the
FCC's implementation of this provision to ensure it meets the spirit of
this new law.
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in
support of the conference report on S. 652, although I do not do so
without reservation.
As this legislation was being worked out, many of the concerns I had
were dealt with in a positive manner. Agreements have been reached
which give my home of Dallas needed language regarding rights-of-way, a
matter of concern to me throughout the negotiation process regarding
telecommunications reform.
Additionally, I have had some concern about the possibility of the
regional Bell operating companies using this legislation as a basis to
engage in massive downsizing. Although I realize that some change in
the operations of these companies is inevitable, I have been most
interested in protecting valuable jobs in my district. Because of
assurances that I have received concerning the position of Southwestern
Bell with respect to these jobs, I am pleased to add my support, and my
vote, to pass this historic legislation.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I must rise to express my
views on this important piece of legislation, the Telecommunications
Act of 1995. This is a comprehensive bill that will allow us to enter
into the technological revolution of the 21st century.
I am pleased with many provisions of the bill. For example, I believe
that it is important that the Justice Department has a strong role in
advising the Federal Communications Commission on whether competition
exists in local markets. I would like to have seen a stronger role;
however, the FCC must give the Justice Department's views substantial
weight, which is a recognition of the Department's strong history and
expertise in antitrust matters. The original versions of the bill would
have given little or no role for the Justice Department.
The bill also allows the telephone companies to enter the long-
distance market as soon as there is actual competition in the local
market. The Bell companies are also required to open up their networks
to local competitors. The bill raises the limit on radio or television
stations that an individual or ownership group may own. The limit,
however, is reasonable and not as large as the original House version.
Furthermore, the bill creates a telecommunications development fund
that is designed to facilitate participation by small businesses in the
industry. I hope that the officials that manage the telecommunications
fund will utilize this opportunity to develop strong outreach measures
toward minority- and women-owned businesses that have been
underrepresented in the telecommunications industry.
Another positive aspect to the bill is the universal service
provisions that make sure that this telecommunications revolution
leaves no one behind. There are strong provisions relating to access to
residents in rural areas, access by schools and libraries, and access
to individuals with disabilities.
The provisions relating to the requirement that the larger television
sets contain v-chip technology is extremely important as we transmit
moral and cultural values to America's children. This V-chip technology
will allow parents to block out certain programs that they find
objectionable. Moreover, the FCC will be required to formulate some
rating guidelines that can assist parents with respect to television
programs.
As with any bill, I do not agree with all of the provisions. I am
concerned about the deregulation of cable rates by March 1999. Many of
us can cite incidents in which cable companies have been slow in
providing quality service at a reasonable price. I hope that the FCC
will encourage the cable companies to continue to develop ways to
improve the quality of cable service and to work with local
municipalities to insure fair treatment for cities and counties.
I am also concerned about some of the provisions relating to
obscenity. Some of these provisions may need to be clarified in a
technical corrections bill. For example, we would not want to prevent a
physician from discussing an abortion procedure on the Internet. I
believe additionally, that the question of auctioning the spectrum
needs further review.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that for the most part, this bill is a good
bill. It will be good for the telecommunications industry, good for
consumers, and good for the country. It has been a major struggle to
get this bill to the floor. Many Members have been working on some form
of this bill for the last 3 years.
We may go forward today, however it should not be without a
commitment to revisit this legislation to make this bill a better bill.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference
report on the telecommunications reform bill.
I originally opposed the measure when it came before the House last
August because I felt the manager's amendment weakened the standards to
promote effective competition and provide fair, reasonable rates for
consumers. I am pleased that the conference report includes a
reasonable checklist of requirements and requires that a FCC public
interest test be met before applying for long distance entry.
I commend the committee and its leadership as well for including
language urging the FCC to give substantial weight to the views of the
U.S. Justice Department in determining Bell entry into long distance. I
feel that judgment from outside the regulating agency is critical to
making a fair decision that is in the best interest of the individual
market served.
One of the main reasons I voted against the bill last summer was the
way in which it would have weakened consumer power in keeping cable
rates in check. It has taken several years to effectively implement the
Cable Act of 1992, legislation which has worked in many ways to keep
cable rates from skyrocketing. I did not want to see Congress's
proconsumer efforts weakened. I am pleased that the conference report,
while not perfect in this area, has made better strides than the
original House bill toward keeping consumer protections in regard to
cable prices and rates.
I am pleased that the conference committee retained the House
position on installation of the V-chip on all 13-inch and larger
television sets. The average American child watches an estimated 27
hours of television per week, and one study estimates that before
finishing elementary school a child will watch over 8,000 murders and
10,000 acts of violence on television. The inclusion of a V-chip will
give parents an additional safeguard to protect children from
objectionable or qusestionable programming.
This is the most comprehensive communications bill since the 1930's.
As we move toward the 21st century, the ability to communicate in a
rapid, cost-effective manner will continue to be important to all
Americans. I am pleased that working together we have achieved a
framework, while not perfect, that will serve to guide our
communication policy both now and in the future.
Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend
Chairman Fields along with the distinguished gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey], and the Telecommunications and Finance
staff for the hard work and long hours you've all spent crafting this
legislation and moving it expeditiously to the floor today. Your
earnest efforts have resulted in an agreement that, while certainly not
flawless, will begin to pave the roads of the information superhighway
with increased competition and assist in promoting greater economic
opportunities for more Americans as we head into the 21st century.
Back in August 1995, I voted against H.R. 1555 because of numerous
concerns I had with the bill particularly in the areas of cable rate
deregulation and mass media ownership concentration. I am now convinced
that, due to significant bipartisan cooperation on these matters, many
of my concerns have been addressed sufficiently enough that I will
support the conference report we have before us.
With respect to cable, this conference report modifies original
language in H.R. 1555 that would have gutted the 1992 Cale Act by
lifting cable rate regulation on the most popular cable programming 15
months after enactment of the bill for the largest operators,
regardless of the competitive nature of their markets. After prolonged
discussions, conferees agreed to redraft this section of the bill to
ensure that true competition exists prior to deregulation of today's
heavily monopolistic cable markets. By 1999 rate requirements will be
lifted for all cable systems across the country.
This is an important compromise Mr. Speaker. According to the General
Accounting Office, blanket deregulation of the cable industry prior to
effective competition in 1984 resulted in a monumental rise in cable
rates at three
[[Page H1177]]
times the rate of inflation. Given the fact that, today, effective
competition exists in less than one-half of 1 percent of all cable
systems nationwide and affordable cable TV alternatives for 99.5
percent of consumers from phone companies or satellite providers is not
yet fully feasible, swiftly opening up these markets as provided in the
original bill would only have spurred price gouging against consumers.
Also, the conference report's provisions on mass media ownership are
much more reasonable than the extreme language in last August's bill.
That language would have virtually guaranteed that power would have
been concentrated among a select few communications megacorporations,
sacrificing the key tenets of communications policy--community control
and variety of viewpoints. That legislation repealed all ownership
limits on radio stations, allowed one network to control programming
reaching 50 percent of all households nationwide, gave one major
communications entity the ability to own newspapers, cable systems, and
television stations in a single town. This type of excessive media
control is not a healthy prescription for competition.
Thankfully, these provisions were altered by lowering to 35 the
percentage of all national television viewers that one network's
programming could reach. In addition, this conference report keeps
intact current restrictions that prevent one media giant from owning
two television stations in one locality or owning newspapers in
combination with ration stations, cable holdings, or TV interests in
the same market.
However, I am most pleased about certain provisions designed to
assist our Nation's smallest telecommunications providers which are
included in this conference report.
As I have said on numerous occasions, while we should all look
forward to the opportunities presented by new, emerging technologies,
we cannot disregard the lessons of the past and the hurdles we still
face in making certain that everyone in America benefits equally from
our country's maiden voyage into cyberspace. I refer to the well-
documented fact that minority and women-owned small businesses continue
to be extremely under represented in the telecommunciations field.
In the cellular industry, which generates in excess of $10 billion a
year, there are a mere 11 minority firms offering services in this
market. Overall, barely 1 percent of all telecommunciations companies
are minority-owned. Of women-owned firms in the United States, only 1.9
percent fall within the communications category.
Several of the provisions included in this bill will begin the
process of eradicating these inequities.
I am very pleased to see that Representative Rush's amendment to help
to advance diversity of ownership in the telecommunications
marketplace, which is similar to a provision I included in last year's
telecommunications legislation, was retained in conference. It requires
the Federal Communications Commission to identify and work to eliminate
barriers to market entry that continue to constrain all small
businesses, including minority and women-owned firms, in their attempts
to take part in all telecommunications industries. Underlying this
amendment is the obvious fact that diversity of ownership remains a key
to the competitiveness of the U.S. telecommunications marketplace.
In addition, I fully support the telecommunications development fund
language included in the conference report. This language ensures that
escrow deposits the FCC receives through auctions be placed in an
interest-bearing account and the interest from such deposits be used to
increase access to capital for small telecommunications firms. This
fund seeks to increase competition in the telecommunications industry
by making loans, investments, or other similar extensions of credit to
eligible entrepreneurs.
Finally, antiredlining provisions that prohibit all
telecommunications providers from discriminating against individuals
and communities on the basis of race, gender, creed, and so forth
address a genuine concern of mine that the information superhighway
must not be allowed to bypass those groups most in need of its
benefits.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in
favor of this conference report.
Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I voted against H.R. 1555, the House-passed
Telecommunications reform bill, in August. I believe the conference
report before us today is a much improved piece of legislation that
deserves our support.
This bill contains the important V-chip technology that will allow
parents to control what programs are viewed by their children. This
parental control device will be of great benefit as consumer access to
a seemingless endless number of new television channels enter the
market place.
I believe this conference report has addressed in a fair manner the
issue of cable deregulation. I represent a rural district and was
greatly concerned about the negative impacts H.R. 1555 would have had
on cable consumers I represent. I understand the importance of free and
open markets, but in rural America competition if often slow in coming.
The conference report before us today ensures consumer protection until
real and meaning cable competition exists.
The telecommunications reform conference report before us today is
not a perfect bill, but it is a very good bill. This legislation allows
for true competition among local and long distance phone companies,
protects cable consumers, and provides needed measures that make it
illegal to intentionally communicate obscene materials over a computer
network.
Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot about America being ready to embark on the
information superhighway. This bill allow us to do that. Last week
during the President's State of the Union address he referenced the
importance of this legislation. I am proud that members on both sides
of the aisle have worked together to produce a bill that is truly
bipartisan. I commend the work of Chairman Bliley, Mr. Dingell, and the
other members of the conference committee for working together to
produce this historic legislation. I urge my colleagues to join with me
in supporting this bill.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker: I would like to express my support for S.
652, the Telecommunications Act conference report, as I believe it is
an important step forward in the development of our telecommunications
policy. The issues we are discussing today--involving local and long
distance phones service, cable TV, cellular phones, and more--will
truly touch the lives of all Americans. As a member of the Commerce
Committee which drafted and approved this bill last year, I'm pleased
that we are finally on the verge of seeing this legislation enacted.
The national telecommunications network will play a very central role
as we prepare to enter the 21st century. Throughout Michigan and the
entire Nation, we must prepare ourselves to take advantage of the
latest technology and do our best to see that there are no potholes on
the information superhighway.
There are many important issues in the bill before us today. Let me
just take a moment to take note of an issue of particular concern to
the people of southwest Michigan--local marketing agreements, also
known as LMA's.
A very successful LMA is in existence between two stations in western
Michigan, WOOD-TV in Grand Rapids and WOTV in Battle Creek. In 1991,
WOTV has suffered millions of dollars of losses and was forced to
terminate their news operation and layoff many employees while they
searched for a buyer.
In late 1991, WOTV was able to enter into an LMA and bring the
station back to financial stability. They now have a fully staffed news
department dedicated to bringing local news to their viewers.
Additionally, they are very active in community affairs such as events
at Western Michigan University and the Kalamazoo Air Show.
I am fully in support of efforts to allow for the continuation of
LMA's in the future and I'm pleased that these provisions are part of
S. 652.
I believe that under this bill, we are preparing our nation for the
wave of the future and leading the world into the 21st century.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, this legislation represents the first
comprehensive overhaul of our Nation's communications policy since
1934. Telecommunications technology has advanced beyond the wildest
dreams of the visionaries of 1934, and yet the regulatory structure has
remained unchanged. The present regulatory structure restricts
competition in telecommunications markets and industries, thus stifling
innovation, raising costs, and delaying the introduction of new
products and services to consumers. Government regulators, rather than
consumers, determine which companies can offer which services, and, in
some cases, at what price. This bill will unshackle the
telecommunications industry from the tenacious grasp of Federal, State,
and local regulations, thus unleashing a broad array of new
telecommunications services at lower costs.
This profoundly important and far-reaching legislation recognizes the
legacy of decades of regulation, and thus does not simply eliminate all
regulations overnight for a brutal battle in the marketplace. While on
first examination this may appear to make sense, the present regulatory
structure has positioned some industries to do remarkably well under
such a scenario, while others would find themselves severely
handicapped. Thus, immediate and total deregulation could possibly
inhibit competition rather than encourage it. Instead, the legislation
has sought to ensure that different industries will be competing on a
level playing field.
This legislation is the product of years of analysis and negotiation,
and is a fair and realistic bill which promotes and encourages
competition in cable and telephony markets. In
[[Page H1178]]
Delaware, for example, the local phone company will be able to offer
consumers long distance services and other telecommunications products.
The local phone company, however, will no longer operate as a monopoly,
and will face competition from other companies. For the first time
Delawareans will have a choice of telecommunications providers, and as
companies compete for their business, they will reap significant
benefits.
I also support provisions that would ensure our Nation's schools and
libraries have affordable access to educational telecommunications
services. Schools can use telecommunications to ensure that all
students, regardless of economic status, have access to the same rich
learning resources. Libraries can ensure that every community has a
publicly accessible means of electronic access to support classroom
instruction, to communicate with the world-wide library community, to
facilitate small business development, to access employment listings
and Government databases, among other uses. It is in the Nation's best
interest to ensure that all schools and libraries, even those in rural
areas, are active participants in the Information Age.
The impact of this legislation, of course, extends far beyond the
borders of Delaware. Everyone, from an elementary school child
exploring the world beyond his or her local community, to an elderly
person benefiting from the expert advice of a physician 1000 miles away
via Telemedicine, to a business seeking to become more efficient, to a
parent wishing to telecommute to work, to a couch potato channel
surfing through 500 channels, to an innovative entrepreneur seeking to
provide new telecommunications services--everyone stands to benefit
enormously from this legislation. Consequently, I give it my strong
support and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the landmark
legislation which we are considering today. S. 652 is the culmination
of years of work to overhaul Federal telecommunications policy and
position America as a world leader in the dawning information age.
While this bill contains many important provisions, I want to address
one area in particular--the issue of ``Telemedicine.'' As chairman of
the Commerce Health Subcommittee, I have a special interest in this
subject.
Although it is subject to different interpretations, the term
``Telemedicine'' generally refers to live, interactive audiovisual
communication between physician and patient or between two physicians.
Telemedicine can facilitate consultation between physicians and serve
as a method of health care delivery in which physicians examine
patients through the use of advanced telecommunications technology.
One of the most important uses of Telemedicine is to allow rural
communities and other medically under-served areas to obtain access to
highly-trained medical specialists. It also provides access to medical
care in circumstances when possibilities for travel are limited or
unavailable.
Despite widespread support for Telemedicine in concept, many critical
policy questions remain unresolved. At the same time, the Federal
Government is currently spending millions of dollars on Telemedicine
demonstration projects with little or no congressional oversight. In
particular, the Departments of Commerce and Health and Human Service
have provided sizable grants for projects in a number of States.
Therefore, I drafted a provision which is included in the conference
report to require the Department of Commerce, in consultation with
other appropriate agencies, to report annually to Congress on the
findings of any studies and demonstrations on Telemedicine which are
funded by the Federal Government.
My provision is designed to provide greater information for Federal
policymakers in the areas of patient safety, quality of services, and
other legal, medical and economic issues related to Telemedicine. With
the enactment of this provision, I am hopeful that we can shed light on
the potential benefits of Telemedicine, as well as existing roadblocks
to its use.
I urge my colleagues to support the conference report to S. 652, this
legislation will prove critical in defining our Nation's leadership
role and economic viability in the 21st century.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, as the principal author of section 365 of
the conference report, I rise to amplify the limited description of
this provision in the statement of managers. In essence, this provision
will permit a large ocean-going American-flag vessel operating in
accordance with the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System [GMDSS]
of the SOLAS Convention to sail without a radio telegraphy station
operated by a radio officer or operator.
In implementing this section, the Coast Guard can rely on the Federal
Communications Commission to determine that a large-ocean going vessel
has GMDSS equipment installed and operating in good working condition.
We do not contemplate the Coast Guard conducting a rulemaking, public
hearings, or other lengthy regulatory process. Rather, we contemplate a
simple adaptation of current, well-established Commission certification
procedures.
Under section 359 of current law, the Federal Communications
Commission is authorized to issue a certificate of compliance to the
operator of a vessel demonstrating that the vessel is in full
compliance with the radio provisions of the SOLAS Convention. By law,
this certificate must be carried on board the vessel at all times the
ship is in use. Thus, once a vessel operator has installed the
necessary GMDSS equipment and demonstrated to the satisfaction of the
Commission that the equipment is operating in good working condition,
the operator will obtain a new or modified certificate of compliance
from the Commission. By confirming that a vessel has on board such a
valid certificate, the Cost Guard would fulfill its responsibilities
under section 365.
Let me emphasize, as well, that this provision does not alter the
Commission's manning or maintenance requirements in any respect. Vessel
operators, for example, will continue to be able to adopt two of the
three permitted maintenance options: on-shore maintenance and equipment
duplication.
For too long, American-flag vessels have been saddled with the
antiquated telegraphy station requirements of the 1934 act. Through our
action today, we hope to help American-flag operators become more
internationally competitive and to speed the introduction of the
satellite-based GMDSS technology.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I support the conference report
before the House today. I am hopeful this legislation will ensure that
our telecommunications markets remain the most competitive in the
world. The Justice Department's role in the success of the legislation
before us is critical. For over a decade, the Justice Department has
fostered competition in these markets and the bill requires that the
Federal Communications Commission, as part of its interest review, will
give ``substantial weight'' to the Justice Department's evaluation of a
Bell Operating Company's application for entry into long distance.
The role included in this bill for the Department of Justice is truly
essential to the ultimate success of this bill. In particular, the bill
requires the FCC to rely on the Department's expertise to assess the
overall competitive impact of the RBOCs entry into long distance.
Clearly, there are other public interest factors which are entitled to
their proper weight, and the FCC's reliance on the Justice Department
is limited to antitrust related matters. In those instances when the
cumulative effect of all other factors clearly and significantly
outweighs the Justice Department's competitiveness concerns, the FCC
should not be precluded from acting accordingly. However, I expect the
FCC will not take actions that, in the Justice Department's view, would
be harmful to competition.
Second, I strongly opposed a provision included in the House passed
bill that would have allowed the Federal Communications Commission
[FCC] to issue rules that would preempt local zoning on where to site
cellular communications towers. Cellular communications companies would
have been allowed to place towers in any location, regardless of local
concerns and the actions of local city councils and planning
commissions, provided that they had obtained approval from an FCC
bureaucrat in Washington. It is estimated 100,000 towers will be sited
across the country by the year 2000. I have consistently supported the
rights of local governments to decide zoning questions and I opposed
this bill because it dramatically infringed on the rights of local
government with respect to zoning. I am pleased a compromise has been
reached on this issue and the FCC will be prevented from infringing on
the rights of local and State land use decisions. The authority of
State and local governments over zoning and land use matters is
absolutely essential and must be preserved.
I congratulate Chairmen Hyde, Bliley, and Fields for their tireless
work on this historic legislation.
Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 furthers
the vital local telecommunications competition goal by prohibiting
States and local governments from erecting barriers to new entrants
providing service. This is an excellent provision, but, because it is a
general mandate, there may be creative attempts to get around it. At
the very least, such attempts to skirt the law would result in lengthy
litigation, which would slow investment and competition. It is for that
reason that I would like to spell out in more detail the types of
requirements that State and local governments should not be able to
impose: A State or local government should not be able to require that
any provider:
Demonstrate that its provision of service would not harm the
competitive position of any current or future providers of service,
would be beneficial to consumers, or would not affect universal
service;
Show that its provision of service would not harm the network of any
provider, other than
[[Page H1179]]
agreeing to abide by uniform technical requirements;
Agree to provide service in, or build out, all or any parts of a
franchise territory;
Show financial capabilities not relevant to the service to be
provided and not required of other providers;
Limit its offering of service until another provider obtains
regulatory relief, that is, withhold offering a service until the
incumbent provider receives pricing flexibility.
I hope this list proves useful to State and local governments in
their efforts to implement this new law and to the FCC in its oversight
of this provision.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the conference report.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 414,
noes 16, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 25]
AYES--414
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--16
Abercrombie
Conyers
DeFazio
Evans
Frank (MA)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Johnson (SD)
Nadler
Peterson (MN)
Sanders
Schroeder
Stark
Volkmer
Williams
Yates
NOT VOTING--4
Bryant (TX)
Chapman
Filner
Rose
{time} 1623
Mr. MOAKLEY and Mr. YOUNG of Florida changed their vote from ``no''
to ``aye.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid of the table.
____________________